The problem with IP, is that he's actually expecting a cogent dialogue from a man who's pathologically angry at something that doesn't exist according to himself.
The usual Christian trope of 'oh, atheists are just angry at God.' Yeah, like you're angry at leprechauns? You don't believe in those, right? What did they ever do to you?
@@lizd2943 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. What kind of worthless af ignorant pos has a problem with the massive social outreach to the poor disenfranchised and homeless, the ending of Slavery in Great Britain ( unsuccessful in the United States), the epicenter of the Civil Rights Movement ( the churches), the building of hospitals, etc etc etc etc etc etc...all done in the Name of God.
@@lizd2943 And absolutely, yes... ignorant af worthless pos atheists such as Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra, etc do pathologically rant against something that doesn't exist according to them ( God).
@@james192599disagree, based on 5,200 pieces of manuscript verified for the time period that all agree with each other. Though you didn’t argue against the point about Aaron, which tells me everything I need to know.
Ra seems extremely proficient at chasing his own tail and mixing up word salads. He's the living embodiment of confirmation bias with a slightly above average vocabulary.
I've been trying to understand the man for years... He just doesn't ever seem to make logical conclusions consistently that pull together his points. I'm generally left thinking... Humm... I wonder what he thought he was saying... Even if I listen repeatedly
@@robinrobyn1714 might have a point here. I don't have a superior vocabulary, but usually, when someone who's speaking does, they use less heard words in a way that you can still get the gist of the thought. Not with Ra 🫤
@@thedude5740I don't if you watched the debate but after watching I believe they use the Septuagint as a Greek translation. Which is the most accurate translation we have to the Old Testament, (The languages at the time were very similar at the time) Where it's still the same definition and can't be misinterpreted (still can ofc) hope that clears something up for you, if you have questions I'll try to answer
@@lorieclark2556 language/symbolism is the foundation of all practices of magic. "The word" of God is not The Holy Bible. The words in the bible are of men attempting to portray God. "The word" of God is cymatic patterns. God's word literally provides form to reality. Man's words can only create mental realms of pattern. Man's language is magic(illusions) and should not be practiced according to "scripture". The way I read the Symbolism is the tree of knowledge of good and evil was human Symbolism. It can never create a wholesome truth. When an illusion is accepted as truth, honest living stops and death begins. The bible holds a great deal of truth, but there is also a great deal that is misunderstood or even intentionally mistranslated. Who am I to speak on such topics? A nobody that happens to be an autodidact. A living breathing being with an ability to freely and critically use its mental facilities.
@@thedude5740 That was kind of a straw man argument as you didn't directly answer the one point. It can not be "misinterpreted" nor "mis translated" (the word in question from the debate is faith) It is not symbolic not does it have patterns the word has a simple definition and is used over and over again in the same way. Yes there is symbolism in the Bible but your talking about it as a whole not the direct argument that was easily addressed. The Bible gets many things correct that some civilizations would have no idea of such as how life popped up in order or one of the 1st books to talk about the curvature of the Earth. I don't know if you've actually read the Bible because your making it sound like a puzzle most of the time simple questions can be answered through the original language translation
@@lorieclark2556 language is symbolism. Letters are symbols attached to meaning. I didn't make a strawman argument. I'm attempting to discuss complicated subject matter. We are constantly relying on faith if that's the word you want to focus on, but that isn't "the word or logos". Our senses receive less than 1% of actual reality. We must have faith in our senses although we know they are lacking. We can't even be certain what we are experiencing is truly happening.
I have watched several Inspiring Philosophy debates and he may be the best at this sort of Podcast-styled debates. Very well researched, prepared, well spoken. Good job Inspiring Philosophy!
Well I Insph debate a creationist.. Insph Was dead wrong on his facts about hebrew.. But nobody could correct him. He's not the best at all.. Very non academic.
@@mountbrocken oh I commented on the actual IP vs creationist kent hovind debate. I saved the comment just in case. 'cos I'm used to youtube being awkward.. So see below A person on youtube commented on how genius inspiring philosophy was sourcing hebrew experts. I replied to them.. "sources hebrew experts" is absolutely ridiculous, because there are biblical hebrew dictionaries out there and online, he should point to one. Ken is actually most correct here look at (timeframe) 47:21 what they are talking about now let's look at the Hebrew.. and you see IP is bringing up a complete red herring. and Ken's point and main point is correct. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹהִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹהִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ The word subdue is a reasonable translation, for וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ one could say conquer. as IP suggests, and as it often is, but it's a red herring. If IP is trying to get some kind of different theology out of translating it as conquer instead of subdue then he is being ridiculous. Hebrew often uses words quite generally e.g. the word for dig can mean to bore or to open one's ears. The other word, וּרְד֞וּ reasonably translated as "and rule". and IP is wrong to say it involves oppression and death. Ruling tends to but not always. So ruling is a good translation. Here are all occurrences for the hebrew root involved biblehub.com/hebrew/uredu_7287.htm The same root occurs in Psalms 68:27 www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%2068:27 the word is used for "leading. them" talking about who among the Jewish people will lead the Jewish people. And then IP is interpreting it as making a new order in the cosmos.. what on earth. Ken is also correct on the punctuation.. It doesn't say subdue and rule the earth.. It doesn't say rule the earth. Let's look at the Hebrew. The word וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ (conquer/subdue). There is an Etnachta on that word. Which denotes a long pause..Like a semi-colon, and the KJV is absolutely right to thus put a semi-colon in their translation there. Before the word rule. So ruling applies to the fish not to the earth. If IP does want to name some expert then he should mention the book and page, or the video and time reference. I don't think he's representing any expert correctly.. 'cos it's unlikely that an expert would be as mistaken as IP here. But the Hebrew is clear and uncontroversial to anybody that has spent a few years studying biblical hebrew.. like me and is familiar with its punctuation and knows what a concordance is and how to use one. All the tools are online. Wikipedia can tell you what an etnachta is "The Etnachta group marks the end of the first segment of a verse" No expert would disagree with that. And no expert would argue with a concordance either. IP, assuming he trying to be honest, so giving him the benefit of the doubt, he, has gone into a level that is beyond him and has confused himself. and is overly confident in his knowledge when he is incorrect. --- I also commented- IP is clearly ducking things here. At 40:15 to determine what IP means by evolution, Ken says Do you believe bananas are related to humans. IP won't answer. At 44:20 IP misrepresents Ken's position. IP says that nobody says that one day a species produces a different species. Ken didn't say that. IP is strawmanning and to make it even more outragenous, IP is accusing Ken of strawmanning because he falsely accuses Ken of making that point..
@@EvanHuber-mi6dn Not paraphrasing. He defines what he wants them to be and then angrily denounces them. The epitome of straw-manning. Of course he would angrily denounce that characterisation, but that doesn’t stop it being accurate.
The most ironic thing is that he generally responds to arguments that totally dismantle his nonsense by declaring that the person he's arguing against is a bad faith actor or a charlatan and that "I'm right!"
He always thinks he's won, and if the thought ever enters his mind that he isn't winning he simply turns his ears off and shouts, "I'm right, you're wrong, everyone except me is a bad faith debater!" to get his fragile ego back together.
The problem is Aaron Ra thinks he is an athirst CS Lewis when he is a lightweight intellectual. My husband and I each have master’s degrees and I would not classify us as the “knower of all things” and Aaron Ra is an excellent example of “the less you know the more you think you know” in action.
Extremely common Inspiring Philosophy W Aron is what happens when an atheist “activist” gets all his fame from debating low hanging fruit. The moment he comes up against someone who knows what he’s talking about he fails.
From what I've seen, Aron Ra attracts people that share his behaviour, or more specifically, share his lack of faith. In Apostate Prophets discussion with him, Aron starts going on about how he has a "Christian" friend that doesn't even believe in what the Bible has to say, he just "fakes it till he makes it", and because of that, he uses his friends weak faith to make a broad generalization on how all Christians are somehow weak in faith and are just putting up an act in hopes that there may or may not be an afterlife, not because of actual proof or countless personal experiences, it's only JUST because his friend has weakness in terms of faith 🤦🏽♂️
Really? His arguments are just cherry picked fallacy from authority. It's nothing but "this person of authority says "x"" but the positions these authorities he quotes he doesn't agree with he ignores.
@@russellward4624 I find that's the case when he talks about the brain and consciousness, but in other cases I haven't seen much of that. That aside, his ability to do and present research is incredible, and he's honest when he's been proven wrong.
@@Draezeth no I talking about the Bible. When confronted with chapters about slavery and the like he uses the "this person of authority says this is the correct interpretation" but doesn't agree with any of thier other interpretations that conflict his his personal interpritations. So he's just looking for people that agree with his potions and saying "hey these people agree with me".
I have the same general impression. He seems to do some honest leg work and find a fair way to hash out questions. I haven't carefully inspected him such that I would notice faults.
I love learning more about debate tactics through this medium in particular. You’ve certainly helped me learn to convey my points in a more orderly, logically consistent manner. Thanks a lot!
@@WiseDisciple Whoever believes in the Lord Jesus Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life repent for the kingdom of God is at hand! Jesus is returning to judge the living and the dead.!.!.
When it comes to evolution an Young earth creationist stuff I think he’s decent, I agree with many of his points against Kent Hovid, but when it comes to Christianity or really anything philosophical he can lately shoots himself in the foot and looks like an idiot.
Matt Dilahunty vs Inspiring Philosophy. As a debate recommendation. As for this one, the main issue I saw is Aaron was switching between three questions. Is Christianity (taken to its most extreme ends dangerous, is believing something without evidence dangerous, and is there emperical scientific evidence for Christianity)? I really felt like while IP did well, they were just talking past each other. The reason why Aaron kept repeating himself is because he couldn't keep his talking points on track, and just switched when he was answered. I think if IP just had said, fine let's forget the debate and address your presuppositions directly, then we can have a meaningful dialog (assuming Aaron wasn't going to just default to "but my experience"). I know that this isn't exactly the place for that kind of discussion, but I've found that dealing with presuppositions is the FIRST thing that needs to be done in order to get anywhere.
That's exactly how any Christians should start. That's why Michael ramsden said that apologetics is not just about providing answers to people's questions. It's also about providing questions to people's answers or even questioning the questions themselves. This is why oftentimes when Jesus was asked questions by people who tried to trap him in his words Jesus stopped by asking them questions first to get them to open up within their own assumptions and reveal the hypocrisy and logic within their own positions. This is why questioning a person's presuppositions in their questions is the first step every Christian should take, let alone any person in general when it comes to discussing with people of different beliefs.
The problem is that some people have a view and definitions and if anybody questions them they force the conversation into their narrative. I don't think Aron Ra is capable of clarifying his definitions.
Cross examination used to be my favourite part of being a lawyer. You have to be able to write down your questions, their answers and indicate where you need to corner them, all at the same time. You VERY quickly learn a hieroglyphic like short hand, because you need to qoute verbatim when needed - otherwise you look like a fool.
Let's be honest. Aron is good at debating average Christians who don't know much about religion. But when faced with an actual Christian apologist, he will run out of arguments
Not choosing the Dictionary definition is a red flag haha Once again very informative. Can we have a series of red flags in terms on debate answer or tactic?
That was beautiful and brutal to watch. Ra got his tail handed to him, and he doesn't even realize it. Like a fighter swinging at the referee after the fight has already been stopped.
I watched this debate when it happened. I don't necessarily like IP because of some of his attitudes towards those he has debated. But, he is very good and was the reason I started digging deeper into apologetics. RA was like hearing nails on a chalkboard. I think IP felt the same. If you watch the whole debate notice that IP gets more and more agitated and starts drinking more and more water (r whatever it was he was drinking). I kept wondering if IP was going to need a restroom break. Ra was not at all good at debating. A terrible listener. Not fully prepared. And really self righteous. I would have enjoyed a debate between IP and an atheist that is much better at debating than Ra.
I’ve noticed in a lot of IP videos in which he is interviewed or speaking with another he tends to take many small sips of water through out the discussion. I think it’s just something he does while he’s nervous
@WiseDisciple He's done a few different debates since then, such as his debate with the Muslim apologist on whether it is ethically okay to marry a child, or his debate with Dr. Michael Shermer or Thomas Westbrook (of Holy Kool-aid fame) on the exact same topic as this one.
I watched this when it first came out and I knew that IP definitely won. But dang, after rewatching IP not only outclassed him but Ra doesn't even realise that he got absolutely whipped in that debate
@@infinity7306No, Ra was very much outclassed he didn't provide why Christianity was dangerous whatsoever, he tried to throw in *"because it's not true"* but that's not the debate and he is presupposing that claim. Ra having "experts" cosign him means nothing, this gentleman who is the host of this channel reviewed another debate with an "orthodox" jewish scholar vs a Christian and the Christian sounded more atheist than anything... I say all that to point out that "expert" means nothing unless we can verify how a person is an expert and that still doesn't mean they are right. Ra loss
@@larryjake7783 Cope more. White supremacy in the US is almost exclusively Christian. Your augment is invalid. Furthermore, the comment I made was discussing the failed interpretation of the word "faith" so try harder, bruv.
@@ScotsThinker Oh? By all means show me a clip or screenshot of text or an audio recording of him answering that exact question. Because I've NEVER found anything with him answering THAT question. The question is always "If the Bible were true (which it's demonstrably not) would you be a Christian/worship the Christian god? To which he and most atheists answer no. Because they understand the character in the book well enough to know it's not worthy of worship. The two questions are very different in nature. Can you show him answering the question you posed as you worded it? Or are you misrepresenting what the question was and how he answered it?
Great breakdown, Nate! Appreciate the time you put into this, but more importantly I appreciate the knowledge you share. IP did a great job considering how tough it is to keep on topic with someone who isn’t nearly as prepared as you.
I wish I remember how I even found this channel but I absolutely love it! The evangelism videos are enlightening and offer very practical advice, the interviews and discussions are a joy to watch and these debate reviews really help break down some of the logical side of the arguments. I can see why this is the number one Christian apologist channel in the world that is hosted by a half Samoan 😊
@@infinity7306 IP never once denied his own religion. But the main point is Ra did not show that Christianity is dangerous he just showed he’s ignorant to the subject and data in a dogmatic way. IP showed evidence through meta-Analysis and multiple studies. Ra used 1 maybe 2 studies that were utter garbage. If you look at his citations on his channel Ra uses satire books and articles for evidence to his bogus claims. The intellect in this debate and most debates is on the Christian. You would do well to check out IP’s channel.
If you think Aron was bad in this debate, you should do a review of his debate with Tyler Vela. Tim O'Neal of History for Atheists wrote re view of Aron's historical blunders, and him ignoring Tyler's presentation and points, even though they were accurate and based off historical scholarship. Aron is a genius when comes to evolution and phylogeny, but outside of that category of expertise, he's a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
So Aron accuses IP of committing the fallacy of equivocation by equating faith to trust, but then out of the same side of his mouth he admits that he's read dictionaries that admits that faith is synonymous with trust, yet he says he doesn't want to use that definition. So in other words he's admitting that he is intentionally and deliberately strawmanning faith into what it isn't. Mr. Ra in your own words, how is THAT not dangerous? 😜
Christians (and other believers) want to believe that faith is describing a reasonable expectation, yet when it comes to the usage of the word, it is always describing a belief that is held without the expectation of it being demonstrated as true, rather instead preferring to believe something without criticism or scrutiny of any kind, making it by definition, unreasonable. It is always a complete and firm trust in a claim that is not able to be determined as accurate, and asserted as true without any verification of any kind. There is no theological way of getting around this, and believers who try are simply lying to themselves.
@@infinity7306 I appreciate your response. However, it seems that your overall point still does not address the underlying point that IP is making in this debate. 1) I think the first problem with your statement however is that you're immediately attacking the Christian's motives of "wanting" something to be true. In a court of law lawyers know that it's very difficult to prove motive, especially if you're speaking in generalities because then you're not able to get to the specific evidences for each Christian's motives in their argumentation. So instead what they do is emotionally pressure the witness to make statements that align with the accusations that they are making on the witness. That's why it's very difficult to prove motive, so it's important that we need to separate the difference between the motive behind the argument and The credibility of the argument itself. 2) you have to give your actual reasons as to why the standard of evidence is not being met. You're saying that the Christians at the end of the day still present Faith as a belief that cannot be verified. But that's only question begging because you're not giving your reasons as to why they are not meeting that expectation. Your assumption seems to be that there is a particular standard of evidence that the Christian must meet. What type of evidence constitutes as reasonable to verify faith? This is something that you first need to answer. By saying that the Christian or any person of faith cannot get around this and probably never will, that's already assuming that the assumption behind your statement is already true which is the exact same point that IP gave to Aron in this debate. What kind of evidence are you talking about? Is this evidence enough to convince you personally? Your personal experience and what you personally believe constitutes as evidence that convinces you is not valid and has no bearing on whether or not faith is based on evidence. The point is that you're inserting your own subjective bias against faith into your definition of what must constitute as evidence. So the questions that you need to first answer are 1) what standard of evidence are you using to qualify whether or not the expectation for evidence is met under faith? 2) if the evidence doesn't convince you do you therefore write off Faith as being belief without evidence?
@@josephthomasmusic " it's very difficult to prove motive" Fear of hell, promise of heaven, etc. Easy. "not giving your reasons" Literal miracles, claims that cannot be demonstrated like people rising from the dead, or the promise of an afterlife, it's not that difficult to understand, you are being deliberately obtuse. "a particular standard of evidence" The same for any claim that is shown to be scientifically accurate, and an actual description of the real world. The claim "I have a dog" is not the same as "my dog can fly", extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Your personal experience" Which is why science gives us an objective standard by which to measure the validity claims. You don't have that for your side, which is why you attempt drown out this fact in minutia, such as comments like your last one. Faith is not wanting to know what is true. Having faith is believing in something you just know ain't true. Neitzsche/Twain (paraphrased)
@@infinity7306 Most of your arguments are pretty much an appeal to ignorance. You would have to give some evidence that most Christians fear death. If anything, the exact opposite is true. Promise of heaven is a pretty poor example of wishing for something to be true. Heaven is a logical outcome from believing that Christianity is true but to say that's the primary motive is like saying that an atheist doesn't believe in God because they have the motive of not being held accountable for what they do. That's a logical outcome from believing in a naturalistic framework so I could say that that's just as easily a motive for an atheist to deny anything supernatural. So that's pretty much a moot point. How do you know that raising a person from the dead cannot and will not be demonstrated? Aren't you presupposing naturalism in this case? 😏 So in other words, you're referring to scientific evidence only? What about deductive arguments? What about arguments from history? What about arguments from reliability? Should any of these count as evidence? Why or why not? Not saying this to be rude, just saying it as an observation, you sound a lot like an AronRa fanboy, because you literally sound just like him. Sounds like somebody's trying to defend their idol. 😉
@@redpillfreedom6692 ok then atheism is bad, evil and dangerous cause of Stalin and Mao are atheist/humanist that killed over 100 million and you are no true Scotsmaning if you don't agree
I would say that what Ra is bringing to the table is a hypothesis which predicts that Christianity will consistently produce poor outcomes. JP presents evidence the outcomes are generally good. Ra says that this cannot be because his reasoning is iron-clad.
@@redpillfreedom6692 Ridiculous. It's not "no true scotsman" if the assertion is overly simplistic garbage on its face. Ra looks at the specific little slice of whatever he's looked up someplace, attributes it to everyone not him equally - it's not a no true scotsman fallacy when he's saying everyone who eats porridge is a scotsman, only to be told that not everyone who eats porridge is a scotsman.
Aron Ra has no philosophical understanding at all. All his debates are rhetoric based and hinging on gaslighting not being called out. IP mopped the floor with him, so much so that Aron multiple times had emotional outbursts even at the questions from the audience.
After watching this a second time, it appears that Ra is doing something similar to Dillahunty where evidence is asked for... it's provided... and is immediately dismissed because their presuppositional definition of acceptable evidence is so tight, or changes like a shifting goal post, that no meaningful dialogue can happen.
I watched the whole debate, and Aron said that Quakers were killing other Christians. If you want to turn all of Christian history into a complete bloodbath like he tried to do, don't have pacifists killing people! He also had Protestants killing Puritans (when Puritans are Protestants). His credibility is nil.
Genuine question: why do people hate on evangelicals and fundamentalists? I wouldn’t say the whole group is perfect, but then again... no group of Christians is.
@@gigahorse1475 Mostly because they cut themselves off from 1500 years of history, philosophy, and theology within the church that speaks to most of the problems they think are new. They are generally a product of Enlightenment rationalism that rejects the authorities and traditions that were the norm in Western Civilization and apart from which Christianity cannot be fully understood. To be fair, I should have specified that I meant overzealous Evangelical Fundamentalists deserve the New Atheists, but I was frustrated when I made my original comment. I admire the evangelical zeal for the scriptures, but when divorced from the historic church they inevitably fall into error.
@@bardofthestar6046 Thanks for the answer! Speaking as a fundamentalist/evangelical… here is my understanding. We cut ourselves off from the history because a lot of the history is ugly. Both Catholics and Protestants burned each other at the stake and persecuted Jews as well. This is only the first of the crimes. Furthermore, when man’s teachings are elevated, it leads to obscuring the Gospel for sake of tradition, which is something Jesus warned us about. That is why fundamentalists care mostly about the pure word of God. We want to go back to the early church, before they built up all these traditions. That being said, I do think it’s important to study the history, philosophy, and theology. Like you expressed, it’s not good to reinvent the wheel. I’m certain there is much wisdom and accomplishments of historical Christianity. But yes, I’m not a fan of authority except the authority of God. I don’t believe in gate keeping the Bible. And I agree with enlightenment rationalism.
@@gigahorse1475 Thanks for the reasonable and temperate answer. I grew up evangelical/ fundamentalist, but I had to confront through my study of history that many traditions that I was raised to disbelieve have their sources in the earliest church fathers we have, including St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Iranaeus of Lyon, St. Clement of Rome, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna. These all agree on the role of the apostles as those who have the authority from Christ, and the ability of that authority to be passed through their successors. The idea of apostleship and what it entails is one of the biggest differences between Catholic/Orthodox churches and all other denominations. In short, historic Christianity believes that the apostles not only received truth and knowledge from Christ, but also the authority to organize and direct the church, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is why we believe in Holy Tradition. We are free to acknowledge sin and error, but measure these against the consistent voice of the church through all ages, as made clear in the scriptures and ecumenical councils. Also, many of the issues you mention were sin, but not doctrinal in nature, and thus not part of Holy Tradition. Others were (and are) uniquely Catholic problems and form part of the reason I'm not Catholic, even though I have respect for them as an apostolically-founded church.
@@gigahorse1475 As an aside, I also think it's worth noting that the church had already existed for three hundred years before the canon of Scripture was closed, so it's hard to argue that the church was right about the canonization of the Scriptures but wrong about all the other stuff. Due to the patristic sources I mentioned, I don't believe that there ever was a time before the church built up traditions. Most of the New Testament is comprised of letters written by the apostles to churches they had already founded and lived with, sometimes for years. St. Paul reiterates this authority throughout the entirety of the Epistle to the Galatians. I don't see how it's reasonable to say that the letters he wrote carry divine authority but the traditions that our earliest sources attribute to the apostles are not also divinely authoritative. Sorry for the huge word dump, I just really enjoy talking about this stuff!
Very cool analysis. Subbed 11:40 the one part I have an issue with as a Catholic - Protestants were not exempt from atrocities towards Catholics either
Hey!! Love your content, I’ve been binging! I’m a Christian who does ministry to the LDS community and would love if you were to review the most recent debate between Aaron Shafovaloff and Kwaku El
"Let me just make sure that I understand you correctly. Your sources don't substantiate the assertion that religiosity is the cause of the actions that we agree are harmful, you admit that you don't have any expertise in this area, yet we should grant greater credence to your appeal to personal anecdote than to this collection of clinical studies that disconfirm your assertion that were conducted by people who do have expertise in this area...and you're not biased..?"
Aron Ra has always been more of a polemicist than a formal debater, and it definitely shows here. Also, please, please NEVER use the phrase "Ra is about to be mated" ever again! LOL.
@@duswil3934 'Crusades are dangerous.' Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Here's another one: 'Holy wars, such as the Jihads in the Islamic religion are dangerous'. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
This video was an absolute blast! IP, excellent job with your preparation (I need to go follow your channel right after this). Nate, I loved your commentary as always. Even just watching your facial reactions at certain points during the video was quite a hoot 😅
@@jakec9522 Wile someone can lost a debate and still make good arguments, due to their opponents superior rhetoric. It was not the case in this debate. Just look at how badly Ra lost his cool during the QA. It's literally the angry atheist meme now. He also failed to challenge IP's arguments in a substantive way. feelings aren't facts that's why you have to use good data to back up your arguments.
As much as i dislike Aron Ra you know how awesome of a testimony he would have if he came to faith. I cant say he'd be a better debater but Angels will be rejoicing and so would I. Pray for his salavation as far away as we think that maybe our God is the God of impossible. On another note he most certainly lost this debate. Good job Mr Michael Jones you have certainly inspired philosophy for me and I thank the Lord Jesus for your work. Thanks for the breakdown Wise Disciple.
I never saw anyone NOT lose Aron Ra. Until Mike Jones. My opinion is that neither won or lost. They both absolutely kicked butt, both making super strong cases and both really holding their own. The worst part for Aron was that he just wasn't prepared for someone to fare so well against him. I think Mike was the better debater. But Aron made some points in his opening statement that I think are very hard for Christians to contend with. When I saw this the first time, I didn't know who Mike Jones was. So I saw Aron's opening statement and thought that there was no way that this other guy was going to be able to contend with this. But then I was equally blown away by Mike. While, I don't think Mike necessarily addressed all of Aron's good points, Mike's own primary arguments were ones that Aron was really not equipped to counter. I like how Mike points out how some things that are pragmatic are not necessarily true, and some things that are true are not pragmatic. This is a valuable point that Aron doesn't take into account and doesn't address as well as some other atheists I've seen in debates (like Sam Harris). Anyhow, this debate is one of the reasons why I eventually came to the conclusion that Mike Jones is the only good Christian apologist. Other apologists keep repeating the same fallacious arguments over and over again, and it's just embarrassing. While I do disagree with Mike on some of his interpretation of quantum physics and neuroscience, I feel compelled to say that Mike stands in a league of his own, thinking for himself instead of just repeating other people's lame arguments.
"Mike stands in a league of his own, thinking for himself instead of just repeating other people's lame arguments." You can definitely say that again. While I don't always agree with IP, as a Christian apologist he really stands out in terms of his debating skills, being one of the few Christian apologists who in my opinion definitely knows how to debate his religion and who also has a sizeable platform. And unfortunately, though I am a Christian I am going to have to agree with your sentiment that most Christian apologists' debating skills in particular to the faith absolutely suck. Worse yet most of the time when they are trying to defend the Christian faith quite a majority of them end up depicting GOD in such a way characteristic of a malignantly narcistic utterly complete monster or to put that another way that I'm guessing most would describe such a character with the aforementioned traits, evil. By the way, what were some of AronRa's points that you thought were good?
If Christianity is dangerous, should there be a higher percentage of criminals who are Christians and those who aren't? In prison, shouldn't there be a higher population of Christians than non-Christians?
No that wouldn’t necessarily prove it, you would have to prove that Christianity what is the direct influence in them committing crimes, and this applies to any philosophy or ideology.
I hope that everyone on both sides learn to debate respectfully and exchange logic with each other in a respectful manner. (because without lies, Atheism dies)
Holy COW... I have a MAJOR problem with Aron Ra statement at about 30:00 ... "20-40% of Americas homeless youth are homeless because their Christian parents disavowed them on account of being gay or trans" (Paraphrase) Im sorry but that reeks of BS. If I didn't have a business to run and had the time to see these peer reviewed studies and do a deep dive I would love to. As a former heavy drug user who spent a lot of time in ghettos doing drugs with homeless people I GUARANTEE you that is not the reason they are homeless. I however, would not be surprised if the homeless youth themselves cited that as a reason... Actually, I'd be stunned if they didn't.
Great vid, just found your channel, great to see in depth analysis of debates on here. Btw, you should definitely review a debate with Graham Oppy, maybe the one between him and Andrew Loke or Rob Koons. There's some intellectual heavyweights going on there so it'd be cool to see!
My biggest critique of IP in this one is he lost control of his cross examination a few times and let Ra monologue and even let him ask IP questions during IP’s cross examination.
What do you think the best set up is for a debate? Should both have an opening, single rebuttal or more then one rebuttal? How do you think we should figure out who "wins" the debate - by a point system of who has less logical fallacies - or if either side had any then no one wins? Do you think there are types of debates that are "pointless" - when/how do they become pointless? Where do you teach debate? How does one become a teacher of debate? Would someone have to take a class on formal and/or informal logic before doing a debate class, or would debate class also cover that subject?
Hello, lot of questions here. Should I make a video on this in the future? Also, where do I teach debate? I don't teach it anymore. I was a public high school teacher in Las Vegas before jumping into ministry. I've said this in the intros to these videos in the past. How does one become a teacher of debate? I was asked to replace the previous teacher who was retiring and I jumped on board because I already had a little background in philosophy and logical fallacies. I think everyone should take a couple intro classes to logic and philosophy because I think it helps us all become better thinkers. Certainly a teacher of debate needs to be versed in valid reasoning and logical fallacies. But there's support set up for teachers in the valley here where all debate teachers meet (or, at least, they used to) in order to network and discuss tournament issues. That's where I got a lot of my early lesson plans as a newbie. Hope these answers helped! :)
There are no demons, hobgoblins, elves, fairys, leprechauns, gnomes, ghosts, spirits, gods, angels, dragons, giants, cyclops, sea goats, mothmen, hydras, sirens, griffins, centaurs... Its all about mythology and folklore.
Just stating that you have been saying the same thing for the past 20 years doesn’t make you right. Ra clearly didn’t have anything to back up his argument. He just kept saying he knows what he’s talking about and wouldn’t address any factual evidence.
Ra once said he wouldn't believe Christianity even if it was true. Why even bother discussing Jesus's Existence, Science, History and the Academic Definition of Faith if Ra is already presupposing a clearly biased approach which is ironically dangerous to finding truth? No wonder he said he's never been convinced for 2 decades. Let's pray he has the chance to open his heart.
@@WiseDisciple Are you really gullible enough to believe that Aron said that verbatim? Ask him to cite that "quote", and them watch him stumble or run away.
@@infinity7306 Hey, hey, I'm just having a conversation over here. You say that never happened? Ok. @ScotsMaiar, Infinity730 says that never happened. Do you want to respond to this?
@@WiseDisciple I am willing to bet the actual quote was something to the effect of "even if a god exists, and even if it's the Christian god, the bible is still wrong, and I would not worship that god because of ... (x,y,z) moral reasons...etc." Which is not the same as "if it was true, I wouldn't believe it".
I think IP could have pressed harder on the claim that believing things that are not "scientifically proven" is dangerous or even wrong, because hard empiricism is a self-defeating epistemology.
That’s an understatement, at the end and the question answers,He did give one of the greatest responses of all time, to Eric Hernandez question about faith, not because his response was good or anything like that, because he completely dodged the question and instead spazzed out and had an emotionally charged rant, he can’t you can’t no one can I win.
Hideho. I'm new to your channel. Heard about you via Chad Gross on the Apologetix315 Podcast. Just a note about Christians killing heretics/etc., I must note that Protestants are not innocent of any blood spilled. Love your commentary, looking forward to viewing more.
It blows my mind how intelligent IP is, the way he answers questions and uses words I’ve never even heard before really makes me feel dumb at times lol, I would never been able to answer the questions the way he does, both you guys keep up the good work you’re doing for Christ!!
Hello WD! just discovered your channel and I admit I was binge-watching yesterday evening😊 and was nodding my head and shoutn' AMEN til I came across your statements around 11:25 about us being grotesque 🥴 🥴 btw, thumbs up 👍 for your honesty! i then remembered a thought I had long ago... i.e. ....the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the Deists, the Masons, the Bolsheviks, Dan Brown, the New Atheists, and some modern Protestants ALL are heirs to the early protestants' conviction that 1) our Lord lost control of history for basically a loooong time >1200 years 2) because our great... grandparents were either a)stupid-enough or b)evil-enough or c) grotesque-enough to be Catholics am I right? (ALL these groups share the same distaste for delving into medieval history unless it can be somehow used to discredit the Catholic Church) your BBFF (best baddie friend forever) kc
Sorry about that! I don't remember saying Catholics are grotesque, but I did speak quickly in the video. There are people in both camps, who didn't represent these camps well, who did awful things. How about that?
@@WiseDisciple >>who did awful things...mistakes were made...😊 (btw, I am very honored that you responded!) I won't take much of your time, but I think we 3rd millenials do often forget that medieval kings (even many early Protestant kings) thought that stealing a person's immortal soul was a more serious crime than stealing their purse or even their mortal life....Hence they (Cath. and Prot.) acted accordingly. It wasn't all brutaity. There was also much beauty in the way sovereigns thought of their people as literally their own children for whose welfare they were reponsible AND for which a sovereign could fry in hell if he were derelict. There are touching examples of the close bond they felt to their people... if you are a veteran you might appreciate that many medieval monarchs perished in battle because they didnt just send their people off to war--- they LED them... another good example of this closeness which was simply the opposite of grotesque was the Holy (Maundy) Thursday ceremony where most medieval kings washed the feet of beggars. (with very little social distancing) This practice has disappeared with modernity. as has that leading-into-battle thing.. a Tudor princess was one of its last practitioners.... >>> in all her movements and gestures, and by her manner, she seemed to act thus not merely out of ceremony, but from great feeling, and devotion. Amongst these demonstrations there was this one remarkable, that in washing the feet she went the whole length of that long hall, from one end to the other, ever on her knees
@@WiseDisciple now you must accept my apology! i just reviewed my long winded "riposte" and i never acknowledged your humble apology. it certainly was NOT necessary but I remain very touched.
I think that it is a thing to learn from in this video is the amount of grace and patience IP has when conversing with Ra and does not take the bait he presents when he starts jabbing at his personality or looking at other people. He addresses the topic and does so with with I think many Godly traits. He does not answer a fool according to his folly so address the rabbit holes Ra brngs up and emotional jabs. He listened and listened well before the debate and during the debate at Ra's points and before He spoke. He controlled his emotions and when they were flaring they were in random with the Spirit of truth and grace since many of us would just lose patience with Ra and go wth well you are going to Hell Ra, you wicked unregenerate man and enjoy the fact rather then pray and mourn the fact like Christ. May the Lord continue to bless IP and his ministry offline and online.
The Hell factor , the concept , is what sets Ra off. He's,I believe, implicitly attacking that in his debates. The fire in the belly. Justifying Hell because some one disagrees, even stridently with anyone, OR God, to me is the epitomy of closed mindedness. It's just seems well, incomprehensible.
@@chriswest8389 It is about objective morality and objective reality which to an extent is closed off like everything else. What you said is like a murderer disagreeing on imprisonment because he just disagrees with the morality of his actions. Understand it's not the equivalent of taste like in art. Rather it's like do I have to love my parents? I don't think I do, oh you disagree. Well, you are closed-minded and bigoted. What you said is like that but worse. You need to understand who God is and why refusing Him is evil not a matter of I just disagree.
@@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv I'd prefer good old ' subjective morality. Kinder and gentler. If Darwinism is true, that's the fact. It explains morality very well. Thank you for your reply
What irked me from the time I first saw this debate was how Ra defined faith in his own words, to represent something that was not the traditional perspective of faith. What I wish IP had done was just throw his hands up and say, "fine, you can have your definition of faith. But that doesn't erase the concept that I am describing by the word 'faith'." Even if definitions change, even if society uses words differently over the ages, the need for new words or revived words to represent concepts is still there. 'Gay' may not mean 'happy', as it did once, but that doesn't mean we don't have a word to describe happiness. And so, Aaron Ra may have his own definition of 'faith', but that doesn't mean that IP's faith (in the traditional sense), doesn't exist.
Christians (and other believers) want to believe that faith is describing a reasonable expectation, yet when it comes to the usage of the word, it is always describing a belief that is held without the expectation of it being demonstrated as true, rather instead preferring to believe something without criticism or scrutiny of any kind, making it by definition, unreasonable. It is always a complete and firm trust in a claim that is not able to be determined as accurate, and asserted as true without any verification of any kind. There is no theological way of getting around this, and believers who try are simply lying to themselves.
@@infinity7306 Except for the fact that Jones debunked the idea the Doubting Thomas and Hebrews 11 as proof that the Bible promotes blind faith. Plus, you can find examples of verses appealing to evidence like Acts 17:11, John 20:31, Matthew 9:5-6 (Where he heals a paralytic to prove his divinity), Isaiah 1:18, 1 Peter 1:18, and others. It's demonstrably false to say that the Bible says that we should believe it without evidence
@@petery6432 Evidence for resurrection is a hearsay since it was written like 70+ years after his resurrection. Where we expect life expectancy to be like 30.
@@dimitrifake53 Your standard exceeds that of historical experts. Do you realize the sheer volume of manuscripts for the New Testament compared to other historical documents? Let me tell you...or better yet, show you. Here is an infographic based on scholarly sources that compares New Testament manuscripts to other manuscripts. visualunit.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/nt_reliability-1.pdf
@@charles4208 This is the first response to IP's dishonesty. th-cam.com/video/gEDqME575AE/w-d-xo.html And here is the second, after he failed to learn his lesson. th-cam.com/video/vFZDDvtJcjc/w-d-xo.html
Aron Ra's statement at the 9:30 mark reminds me of a scene from the 1997 film Contact starring Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey. Foster's character, Eleanor or Ellie, was raised by her widowed father who nurtured her interests in science. As an adult, she meets Palmer, theologian portrayed by McConaughey. They form a friendship. At one point Ellie tells him that she needs proof and evidence. After some thought, Palmer asks Ellie if her father loved her. She answers with an emphatic yes. He says "Prove it." She thinks and responds with, "I can't."
@@WiseDisciple Only the departed Tim wilson know about this Church. Warning a few naughty words, but easier than listening to Aron Ra. th-cam.com/video/pb-0NYA9KGs/w-d-xo.html
I spoke with Ra on one of his videos about a Satanist get together in a city hall somewhere, I said it was odd that an Atheist would be part of a religious group of any kind, he responded with not only is he a member of the satanic temple, but also the jehovah's witnesses and other religious beliefs so he can better argue with Christian apologists. My response was " I don't understand how you can use other religious beliefs against Christianity when most have little to nothing to do with Christianity." To which his response was basically " I don't". He's so tied up with not having a position on any one subject that it's harder to debate a strawman than him. Last I saw the comments where still up, it was a short conversation, which was disappointing ,but I wasn't expecting a whole lot with someone of his caliber who can't over talk someone with a written comment.
Does Ra have any content where he defends his version of scientism, where in order for anything to be true it must be scientifically verifiable? Has this man never heard of metaphysics? Does he know how incoherent he sounds when he attempts to coerce Christians to explain metaphysical, moral, and spiritual beliefs by materialistic metrics? Good gracious this is infuriating.
It's also ironic to think he depends on the very Metaphysics he denies for Reasoning, Morality, knowing that other minds exist, aesthetic judgements and Convictions of Truth like for science itself.
As Eric Hernandez said, "Saying there is no scientific evidence for a God is like saying plastic doesn't exist because a metal detector can't find plastic."
@@campfireaddict6417Metaphysics: "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space." Literally the first google definition for metaphysics. plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/ Here's an article that answers most of your questions specifically relating to the definition of metaphysics.
@@jakec9522The problem is not so much the words he uses to define faith. The real problem is his unspoken definition which can be inferred from the way he argued. I get the impression that for him faith is belief and confidence in things he personally considers silly. He is defining faith in terms of his own beliefs.
Aron's superstar status on the neoathiest stage reveals something deeply rotten. I knew this back when I was a paleoatheist, before I became a Christian.
Aron thinks shaping what someone believes is worse than judging them on their morality? I'm sorry, but on what planet is your moral expression not a product of what you believe? How does Aron propose we inculcate morality without also shaping belief? Does Aron not murder, not because he thinks it's wrong, but because he's letting Western values restrain him despite his personal conviction otherwise? This dude is talking nonsense.
The problem with IP, is that he's actually expecting a cogent dialogue from a man who's pathologically angry at something that doesn't exist according to himself.
The usual Christian trope of 'oh, atheists are just angry at God.' Yeah, like you're angry at leprechauns? You don't believe in those, right? What did they ever do to you?
Lol 😂 idk why he got so ANGRY. Sharing info and communicating in a calm manner helps you win
Why do you guys keep making this obviously false argument? He's not mad at God, he's mad at what people do in the name of God.
@@lizd2943 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. What kind of worthless af ignorant pos has a problem with the massive social outreach to the poor disenfranchised and homeless, the ending of Slavery in Great Britain ( unsuccessful in the United States), the epicenter of the Civil Rights Movement ( the churches), the building of hospitals, etc etc etc etc etc etc...all done in the Name of God.
@@lizd2943 And absolutely, yes... ignorant af worthless pos atheists such as Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra, etc do pathologically rant against something that doesn't exist according to them ( God).
Aron Ra's sources: 1. Trust me 2.I've seen 3. I feel 4. I think 5. Trust me bro!
Ironically he wants us to have faith in him. 😂
@@c2s2942"NOT FAITH - TRUST!!!" 😂
And 6. I said, TRUST ME, BRO!
IPs source is the bible an ancient book with more mistakes in it than a 2nd grade HW assignment
@@james192599disagree, based on 5,200 pieces of manuscript verified for the time period that all agree with each other. Though you didn’t argue against the point about Aaron, which tells me everything I need to know.
Ra seems extremely proficient at chasing his own tail and mixing up word salads. He's the living embodiment of confirmation bias with a slightly above average vocabulary.
Brutally accurate
He is an Epsilon!
I've been trying to understand the man for years...
He just doesn't ever seem to make logical conclusions consistently that pull together his points.
I'm generally left thinking... Humm... I wonder what he thought he was saying...
Even if I listen repeatedly
You mean - Vastly below average vocabulary. Aron Ra has a vastly below average vocabulary.
@@robinrobyn1714 might have a point here.
I don't have a superior vocabulary, but usually, when someone who's speaking does, they use less heard words in a way that you can still get the gist of the thought.
Not with Ra 🫤
I love that he literally ignores the definition of a word because it proves us right.
I don't agree with RA, but I do find that many words can be better defined or even that the original meaning of the symbols used have been altered.
@@thedude5740I don't if you watched the debate but after watching I believe they use the Septuagint as a Greek translation. Which is the most accurate translation we have to the Old Testament, (The languages at the time were very similar at the time) Where it's still the same definition and can't be misinterpreted (still can ofc) hope that clears something up for you, if you have questions I'll try to answer
@@lorieclark2556 language/symbolism is the foundation of all practices of magic. "The word" of God is not The Holy Bible. The words in the bible are of men attempting to portray God. "The word" of God is cymatic patterns. God's word literally provides form to reality. Man's words can only create mental realms of pattern. Man's language is magic(illusions) and should not be practiced according to "scripture". The way I read the Symbolism is the tree of knowledge of good and evil was human Symbolism. It can never create a wholesome truth. When an illusion is accepted as truth, honest living stops and death begins.
The bible holds a great deal of truth, but there is also a great deal that is misunderstood or even intentionally mistranslated.
Who am I to speak on such topics? A nobody that happens to be an autodidact. A living breathing being with an ability to freely and critically use its mental facilities.
@@thedude5740 That was kind of a straw man argument as you didn't directly answer the one point. It can not be "misinterpreted" nor "mis translated" (the word in question from the debate is faith) It is not symbolic not does it have patterns the word has a simple definition and is used over and over again in the same way. Yes there is symbolism in the Bible but your talking about it as a whole not the direct argument that was easily addressed. The Bible gets many things correct that some civilizations would have no idea of such as how life popped up in order or one of the 1st books to talk about the curvature of the Earth. I don't know if you've actually read the Bible because your making it sound like a puzzle most of the time simple questions can be answered through the original language translation
@@lorieclark2556 language is symbolism. Letters are symbols attached to meaning. I didn't make a strawman argument. I'm attempting to discuss complicated subject matter.
We are constantly relying on faith if that's the word you want to focus on, but that isn't "the word or logos". Our senses receive less than 1% of actual reality. We must have faith in our senses although we know they are lacking. We can't even be certain what we are experiencing is truly happening.
I have watched several Inspiring Philosophy debates and he may be the best at this sort of Podcast-styled debates. Very well researched, prepared, well spoken. Good job Inspiring Philosophy!
Well I Insph debate a creationist.. Insph Was dead wrong on his facts about hebrew.. But nobody could correct him. He's not the best at all.. Very non academic.
For my own curiosity, is there alternative sources that are souly focused on Hebrew on a more accurate level perhaps?
@@boliussa how so?
@@arno_groenewald I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're asking
@@mountbrocken oh I commented on the actual IP vs creationist kent hovind debate. I saved the comment just in case. 'cos I'm used to youtube being awkward.. So see below
A person on youtube commented on how genius inspiring philosophy was sourcing hebrew experts. I replied to them..
"sources hebrew experts" is absolutely ridiculous, because there are biblical hebrew dictionaries out there and online, he should point to one. Ken is actually most correct here look at (timeframe) 47:21 what they are talking about now let's look at the Hebrew.. and you see IP is bringing up a complete red herring. and Ken's point and main point is correct.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹהִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹהִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
The word subdue is a reasonable translation, for וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ one could say conquer. as IP suggests, and as it often is, but it's a red herring. If IP is trying to get some kind of different theology out of translating it as conquer instead of subdue then he is being ridiculous. Hebrew often uses words quite generally e.g. the word for dig can mean to bore or to open one's ears.
The other word, וּרְד֞וּ reasonably translated as "and rule". and IP is wrong to say it involves oppression and death. Ruling tends to but not always. So ruling is a good translation. Here are all occurrences for the hebrew root involved biblehub.com/hebrew/uredu_7287.htm
The same root occurs in Psalms 68:27 www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%2068:27
the word is used for "leading. them" talking about who among the Jewish people will lead the Jewish people.
And then IP is interpreting it as making a new order in the cosmos.. what on earth.
Ken is also correct on the punctuation.. It doesn't say subdue and rule the earth.. It doesn't say rule the earth. Let's look at the Hebrew. The word וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ (conquer/subdue).
There is an Etnachta on that word. Which denotes a long pause..Like a semi-colon, and the KJV is absolutely right to thus put a semi-colon in their translation there. Before the word rule. So ruling applies to the fish not to the earth.
If IP does want to name some expert then he should mention the book and page, or the video and time reference. I don't think he's representing any expert correctly.. 'cos it's unlikely that an expert would be as mistaken as IP here.
But the Hebrew is clear and uncontroversial to anybody that has spent a few years studying biblical hebrew.. like me and is familiar with its punctuation and knows what a concordance is and how to use one. All the tools are online. Wikipedia can tell you what an etnachta is "The Etnachta group marks the end of the first segment of a verse" No expert would disagree with that.
And no expert would argue with a concordance either. IP, assuming he trying to be honest, so giving him the benefit of the doubt, he, has gone into a level that is beyond him and has confused himself. and is overly confident in his knowledge when he is incorrect.
---
I also commented-
IP is clearly ducking things here. At 40:15 to determine what IP means by evolution, Ken says Do you believe bananas are related to humans. IP won't answer. At 44:20 IP misrepresents Ken's position. IP says that nobody says that one day a species produces a different species. Ken didn't say that. IP is strawmanning and to make it even more outragenous, IP is accusing Ken of strawmanning because he falsely accuses Ken of making that point..
Aron Ra is the king of framing things in the worst possible way and arguing in bad faith lol
This is atheist, leftist 101
A lot of athiests are like this.
He also has a habit of incorrectly paraphrasing Christian beliefs and getting angry at his own inaccurate paraphrase.
@@EvanHuber-mi6dn Not paraphrasing. He defines what he wants them to be and then angrily denounces them. The epitome of straw-manning. Of course he would angrily denounce that characterisation, but that doesn’t stop it being accurate.
The most ironic thing is that he generally responds to arguments that totally dismantle his nonsense by declaring that the person he's arguing against is a bad faith actor or a charlatan and that "I'm right!"
Ra got dealt with on this, i dont even think he realized it. Went straight over his head..he probably left thinking he won.
Yeah he said in his idiotic review of the debate that he thinks he won hands down😂
I've noticed Ra seems to be self-unaware the few times I've seen him debate.
He always thinks he's won, and if the thought ever enters his mind that he isn't winning he simply turns his ears off and shouts, "I'm right, you're wrong, everyone except me is a bad faith debater!" to get his fragile ego back together.
The problem is Aaron Ra thinks he is an athirst CS Lewis when he is a lightweight intellectual. My husband and I each have master’s degrees and I would not classify us as the “knower of all things” and Aaron Ra is an excellent example of “the less you know the more you think you know” in action.
Extremely common Inspiring Philosophy W
Aron is what happens when an atheist “activist” gets all his fame from debating low hanging fruit. The moment he comes up against someone who knows what he’s talking about he fails.
From what I've seen, Aron Ra attracts people that share his behaviour, or more specifically, share his lack of faith. In Apostate Prophets discussion with him, Aron starts going on about how he has a "Christian" friend that doesn't even believe in what the Bible has to say, he just "fakes it till he makes it", and because of that, he uses his friends weak faith to make a broad generalization on how all Christians are somehow weak in faith and are just putting up an act in hopes that there may or may not be an afterlife, not because of actual proof or countless personal experiences, it's only JUST because his friend has weakness in terms of faith 🤦🏽♂️
I mean , do you really expect anything better from somebody with such a stupid and self-agrandizing pseudonym as "Aron Ra?"
The Ben Shapiro of Atheism.
IP is one of my favorites. I don’t agree with all of the methodology, but the guy is legit. And very classy as well.
Really? His arguments are just cherry picked fallacy from authority. It's nothing but "this person of authority says "x"" but the positions these authorities he quotes he doesn't agree with he ignores.
@@russellward4624 I find that's the case when he talks about the brain and consciousness, but in other cases I haven't seen much of that. That aside, his ability to do and present research is incredible, and he's honest when he's been proven wrong.
@@Draezeth no I talking about the Bible. When confronted with chapters about slavery and the like he uses the "this person of authority says this is the correct interpretation" but doesn't agree with any of thier other interpretations that conflict his his personal interpritations. So he's just looking for people that agree with his potions and saying "hey these people agree with me".
@@russellward4624 Ah I see. I haven't watching his videos on slavery.
I have the same general impression. He seems to do some honest leg work and find a fair way to hash out questions. I haven't carefully inspected him such that I would notice faults.
I love learning more about debate tactics through this medium in particular. You’ve certainly helped me learn to convey my points in a more orderly, logically consistent manner. Thanks a lot!
My pleasure! Glad to help 👊🏼👊🏼👊🏼
@@WiseDisciple 👊🏾
@@WiseDisciple Whoever believes in the Lord Jesus Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life repent for the kingdom of God is at hand! Jesus is returning to judge the living and the dead.!.!.
Ditto, The Google Scholar!
if it show Ra that he is wrong, he will simply ignore its existence and deny it. Thats why he only has the same argument over and over.
When it comes to evolution an Young earth creationist stuff I think he’s decent, I agree with many of his points against Kent Hovid, but when it comes to Christianity or really anything philosophical he can lately shoots himself in the foot and looks like an idiot.
Matt Dilahunty vs Inspiring Philosophy. As a debate recommendation. As for this one, the main issue I saw is Aaron was switching between three questions. Is Christianity (taken to its most extreme ends dangerous, is believing something without evidence dangerous, and is there emperical scientific evidence for Christianity)? I really felt like while IP did well, they were just talking past each other. The reason why Aaron kept repeating himself is because he couldn't keep his talking points on track, and just switched when he was answered. I think if IP just had said, fine let's forget the debate and address your presuppositions directly, then we can have a meaningful dialog (assuming Aaron wasn't going to just default to "but my experience"). I know that this isn't exactly the place for that kind of discussion, but I've found that dealing with presuppositions is the FIRST thing that needs to be done in order to get anywhere.
That's exactly how any Christians should start. That's why Michael ramsden said that apologetics is not just about providing answers to people's questions. It's also about providing questions to people's answers or even questioning the questions themselves. This is why oftentimes when Jesus was asked questions by people who tried to trap him in his words Jesus stopped by asking them questions first to get them to open up within their own assumptions and reveal the hypocrisy and logic within their own positions. This is why questioning a person's presuppositions in their questions is the first step every Christian should take, let alone any person in general when it comes to discussing with people of different beliefs.
Great observation, Tyler! Dealing with presuppositions are a very helpful strategy! And thanks for the suggestion! I added it to the list 😊
The problem is that some people have a view and definitions and if anybody questions them they force the conversation into their narrative. I don't think Aron Ra is capable of clarifying his definitions.
Cross examination used to be my favourite part of being a lawyer. You have to be able to write down your questions, their answers and indicate where you need to corner them, all at the same time. You VERY quickly learn a hieroglyphic like short hand, because you need to qoute verbatim when needed - otherwise you look like a fool.
Right, we called it "flow" in debate. Did y'all have a name for your shorthand?
As expected, if you go on Aron’s channel, all the atheists think he performed brilliantly.
Atheism is an entire echo chamber of self praise.
I like your profile picture.
The fact that anyone finds this drunk fool to be wise absolutely blows my mind.
that is astonishing and disappointing
Let's be honest. Aron is good at debating average Christians who don't know much about religion. But when faced with an actual Christian apologist, he will run out of arguments
Not choosing the Dictionary definition is a red flag haha Once again very informative. Can we have a series of red flags in terms on debate answer or tactic?
Maybe I should make some flags and then throw them up in future videos? Ha
That was beautiful and brutal to watch. Ra got his tail handed to him, and he doesn't even realize it.
Like a fighter swinging at the referee after the fight has already been stopped.
Ra is low hanging fruit, but like you said doesn’t even realize it.
I watched this debate when it happened. I don't necessarily like IP because of some of his attitudes towards those he has debated. But, he is very good and was the reason I started digging deeper into apologetics. RA was like hearing nails on a chalkboard. I think IP felt the same. If you watch the whole debate notice that IP gets more and more agitated and starts drinking more and more water (r whatever it was he was drinking). I kept wondering if IP was going to need a restroom break. Ra was not at all good at debating. A terrible listener. Not fully prepared. And really self righteous. I would have enjoyed a debate between IP and an atheist that is much better at debating than Ra.
Thanks for the comment, if there’s a better I.P. debate you can think of, let me know!
He might have been drinking water but IP has a tradition of having a glass of scotch during his debates.
I’ve noticed in a lot of IP videos in which he is interviewed or speaking with another he tends to take many small sips of water through out the discussion. I think it’s just something he does while he’s nervous
I know I’m late, but I much preferred his debate on the problem of evil against Alex O’ Connor.
@WiseDisciple He's done a few different debates since then, such as his debate with the Muslim apologist on whether it is ethically okay to marry a child, or his debate with Dr. Michael Shermer or Thomas Westbrook (of Holy Kool-aid fame) on the exact same topic as this one.
This became a bit hard to watch; Inspiring Philosophy dismantled him
I watched this when it first came out and I knew that IP definitely won. But dang, after rewatching IP not only outclassed him but Ra doesn't even realise that he got absolutely whipped in that debate
Because he didnt? .. He also spent several videos with several Christian scholars and greek experts who acknowledged his claims.
@@infinity7306No, Ra was very much outclassed he didn't provide why Christianity was dangerous whatsoever, he tried to throw in *"because it's not true"* but that's not the debate and he is presupposing that claim.
Ra having "experts" cosign him means nothing, this gentleman who is the host of this channel reviewed another debate with an "orthodox" jewish scholar vs a Christian and the Christian sounded more atheist than anything...
I say all that to point out that "expert" means nothing unless we can verify how a person is an expert and that still doesn't mean they are right. Ra loss
@@larryjake7783
Cope more. White supremacy in the US is almost exclusively Christian. Your augment is invalid.
Furthermore, the comment I made was discussing the failed interpretation of the word "faith" so try harder, bruv.
Ra is what you call a man who is wise in his own conceit.
Relevance?
It's a fact that Aaron lost that debate.
Aron Ra: "I'm not dogmatic."
I think this debate shows that he absolutely is dogmatic.
You should see him answer the Question if Christianity is true would he believe it?
Take a wild guess as to what he said.
@@ScotsThinker We need to pray hard for him.
Agreed!
@@ScotsThinker Oh? By all means show me a clip or screenshot of text or an audio recording of him answering that exact question.
Because I've NEVER found anything with him answering THAT question. The question is always "If the Bible were true (which it's demonstrably not) would you be a Christian/worship the Christian god? To which he and most atheists answer no. Because they understand the character in the book well enough to know it's not worthy of worship. The two questions are very different in nature.
Can you show him answering the question you posed as you worded it? Or are you misrepresenting what the question was and how he answered it?
@@joshwaggoner1301 I'm curious as to how you think you can demonstrate the Bible is not true.
Great breakdown, Nate! Appreciate the time you put into this, but more importantly I appreciate the knowledge you share. IP did a great job considering how tough it is to keep on topic with someone who isn’t nearly as prepared as you.
Thanks for the encouragement! Appreciate you!
AR: Religion is dangerous
IP: Why?
AR: Because Christians don't support my political beliefs.
IP: What?
I wish I remember how I even found this channel but I absolutely love it! The evangelism videos are enlightening and offer very practical advice, the interviews and discussions are a joy to watch and these debate reviews really help break down some of the logical side of the arguments. I can see why this is the number one Christian apologist channel in the world that is hosted by a half Samoan 😊
JIM! This is such an encouragement! Thank you so much! Really appreciate you 👊🏼👊🏼👊🏼
I told you Ra is an intellectual lightweight who is a champion strawman slayer!
It's pathetic that you have to deny your own religion when it is demonstrated to you how it is dangerous.
@@infinity7306 You're not making sense, Bro.
@@DefenderoftheCross butthurt atheist butthurt
@@lukesalazar9283
You are not helping your cause by trolling.
@@infinity7306 IP never once denied his own religion. But the main point is Ra did not show that Christianity is dangerous he just showed he’s ignorant to the subject and data in a dogmatic way. IP showed evidence through meta-Analysis and multiple studies. Ra used 1 maybe 2 studies that were utter garbage. If you look at his citations on his channel Ra uses satire books and articles for evidence to his bogus claims. The intellect in this debate and most debates is on the Christian. You would do well to check out IP’s channel.
20:10 "It's called hermeneutics. Another question.." that was cold 👏
It's actually 20:10, brother🙏
That cracked me up.
@garintj1547 thanks!
If you think Aron was bad in this debate, you should do a review of his debate with Tyler Vela. Tim O'Neal of History for Atheists wrote re view of Aron's historical blunders, and him ignoring Tyler's presentation and points, even though they were accurate and based off historical scholarship.
Aron is a genius when comes to evolution and phylogeny, but outside of that category of expertise, he's a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
That only gave a few examples. Most of what he said was right.
Yeah I completely agree, I would even argue when it comes to his own naturalism he’s not very intelligent on that.
@@reeseexplains8935 yeah No.
So Aron accuses IP of committing the fallacy of equivocation by equating faith to trust, but then out of the same side of his mouth he admits that he's read dictionaries that admits that faith is synonymous with trust, yet he says he doesn't want to use that definition. So in other words he's admitting that he is intentionally and deliberately strawmanning faith into what it isn't. Mr. Ra in your own words, how is THAT not dangerous? 😜
Christians (and other believers) want to believe that faith is describing a reasonable expectation, yet when it comes to the usage of the word, it is always describing a belief that is held without the expectation of it being demonstrated as true, rather instead preferring to believe something without criticism or scrutiny of any kind, making it by definition, unreasonable. It is always a complete and firm trust in a claim that is not able to be determined as accurate, and asserted as true without any verification of any kind.
There is no theological way of getting around this, and believers who try are simply lying to themselves.
@@infinity7306 I appreciate your response. However, it seems that your overall point still does not address the underlying point that IP is making in this debate. 1) I think the first problem with your statement however is that you're immediately attacking the Christian's motives of "wanting" something to be true. In a court of law lawyers know that it's very difficult to prove motive, especially if you're speaking in generalities because then you're not able to get to the specific evidences for each Christian's motives in their argumentation. So instead what they do is emotionally pressure the witness to make statements that align with the accusations that they are making on the witness. That's why it's very difficult to prove motive, so it's important that we need to separate the difference between the motive behind the argument and The credibility of the argument itself.
2) you have to give your actual reasons as to why the standard of evidence is not being met. You're saying that the Christians at the end of the day still present Faith as a belief that cannot be verified. But that's only question begging because you're not giving your reasons as to why they are not meeting that expectation. Your assumption seems to be that there is a particular standard of evidence that the Christian must meet. What type of evidence constitutes as reasonable to verify faith? This is something that you first need to answer. By saying that the Christian or any person of faith cannot get around this and probably never will, that's already assuming that the assumption behind your statement is already true which is the exact same point that IP gave to Aron in this debate. What kind of evidence are you talking about? Is this evidence enough to convince you personally? Your personal experience and what you personally believe constitutes as evidence that convinces you is not valid and has no bearing on whether or not faith is based on evidence. The point is that you're inserting your own subjective bias against faith into your definition of what must constitute as evidence. So the questions that you need to first answer are 1) what standard of evidence are you using to qualify whether or not the expectation for evidence is met under faith? 2) if the evidence doesn't convince you do you therefore write off Faith as being belief without evidence?
@@josephthomasmusic
" it's very difficult to prove motive"
Fear of hell, promise of heaven, etc. Easy.
"not giving your reasons"
Literal miracles, claims that cannot be demonstrated like people rising from the dead, or the promise of an afterlife, it's not that difficult to understand, you are being deliberately obtuse.
"a particular standard of evidence"
The same for any claim that is shown to be scientifically accurate, and an actual description of the real world.
The claim "I have a dog" is not the same as "my dog can fly", extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
"Your personal experience"
Which is why science gives us an objective standard by which to measure the validity claims.
You don't have that for your side, which is why you attempt drown out this fact in minutia, such as comments like your last one.
Faith is not wanting to know what is true.
Having faith is believing in something you just know ain't true.
Neitzsche/Twain (paraphrased)
@@infinity7306 Most of your arguments are pretty much an appeal to ignorance. You would have to give some evidence that most Christians fear death. If anything, the exact opposite is true. Promise of heaven is a pretty poor example of wishing for something to be true. Heaven is a logical outcome from believing that Christianity is true but to say that's the primary motive is like saying that an atheist doesn't believe in God because they have the motive of not being held accountable for what they do. That's a logical outcome from believing in a naturalistic framework so I could say that that's just as easily a motive for an atheist to deny anything supernatural. So that's pretty much a moot point.
How do you know that raising a person from the dead cannot and will not be demonstrated? Aren't you presupposing naturalism in this case? 😏
So in other words, you're referring to scientific evidence only? What about deductive arguments? What about arguments from history? What about arguments from reliability? Should any of these count as evidence? Why or why not?
Not saying this to be rude, just saying it as an observation, you sound a lot like an AronRa fanboy, because you literally sound just like him. Sounds like somebody's trying to defend their idol. 😉
@@josephthomasmusic
Oof, your epistemology needs work.
Perhaps a course in critical thinking could help.
I.P. comes to the table with studies and science.
Ra comes to the table with strawmen.
IP only had No True Scostman fallacies.
@@redpillfreedom6692 ok then atheism is bad, evil and dangerous cause of Stalin and Mao are atheist/humanist that killed over 100 million and you are no true Scotsmaning if you don't agree
I would say that what Ra is bringing to the table is a hypothesis which predicts that Christianity will consistently produce poor outcomes. JP presents evidence the outcomes are generally good. Ra says that this cannot be because his reasoning is iron-clad.
@@redpillfreedom6692 Ridiculous. It's not "no true scotsman" if the assertion is overly simplistic garbage on its face. Ra looks at the specific little slice of whatever he's looked up someplace, attributes it to everyone not him equally - it's not a no true scotsman fallacy when he's saying everyone who eats porridge is a scotsman, only to be told that not everyone who eats porridge is a scotsman.
@@redpillfreedom6692 Rather, He had No True Scotsman statements which were correct. So you need to sit up and listen to those statements.
Aron Ra has no philosophical understanding at all. All his debates are rhetoric based and hinging on gaslighting not being called out. IP mopped the floor with him, so much so that Aron multiple times had emotional outbursts even at the questions from the audience.
After watching this a second time, it appears that Ra is doing something similar to Dillahunty where evidence is asked for... it's provided... and is immediately dismissed because their presuppositional definition of acceptable evidence is so tight, or changes like a shifting goal post, that no meaningful dialogue can happen.
I 100% agree! Well said. It’s super annoying that they (and others) refuse to see it
Glad you're back brother, I hope you enjoyed your vacation.
Thankya sir! I had too much of a good time (and food) 😉
AAron is like the kid in class that shouts out the wrong answer with complete confidence.
I watched the whole debate, and Aron said that Quakers were killing other Christians. If you want to turn all of Christian history into a complete bloodbath like he tried to do, don't have pacifists killing people! He also had Protestants killing Puritans (when Puritans are Protestants). His credibility is nil.
I’m convinced dillahunty and Aron ra are the same people and dillahunty is just wearing a wig.
Lol!
Yes
😂😂😂 Hilarious!
But the points they made would still be valid. Insulting them doesn't disprove them. It just proves your willingness to avoid the implications.
@@jakec9522 someone’s alittle 🧂
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the New Atheists and American Evangelical Fundamentalists deserve each other.
Genuine question: why do people hate on evangelicals and fundamentalists? I wouldn’t say the whole group is perfect, but then again... no group of Christians is.
@@gigahorse1475 Mostly because they cut themselves off from 1500 years of history, philosophy, and theology within the church that speaks to most of the problems they think are new. They are generally a product of Enlightenment rationalism that rejects the authorities and traditions that were the norm in Western Civilization and apart from which Christianity cannot be fully understood.
To be fair, I should have specified that I meant overzealous Evangelical Fundamentalists deserve the New Atheists, but I was frustrated when I made my original comment. I admire the evangelical zeal for the scriptures, but when divorced from the historic church they inevitably fall into error.
@@bardofthestar6046 Thanks for the answer! Speaking as a fundamentalist/evangelical… here is my understanding.
We cut ourselves off from the history because a lot of the history is ugly. Both Catholics and Protestants burned each other at the stake and persecuted Jews as well. This is only the first of the crimes. Furthermore, when man’s teachings are elevated, it leads to obscuring the Gospel for sake of tradition, which is something Jesus warned us about. That is why fundamentalists care mostly about the pure word of God. We want to go back to the early church, before they built up all these traditions.
That being said, I do think it’s important to study the history, philosophy, and theology. Like you expressed, it’s not good to reinvent the wheel. I’m certain there is much wisdom and accomplishments of historical Christianity.
But yes, I’m not a fan of authority except the authority of God. I don’t believe in gate keeping the Bible. And I agree with enlightenment rationalism.
@@gigahorse1475 Thanks for the reasonable and temperate answer. I grew up evangelical/ fundamentalist, but I had to confront through my study of history that many traditions that I was raised to disbelieve have their sources in the earliest church fathers we have, including St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Iranaeus of Lyon, St. Clement of Rome, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna. These all agree on the role of the apostles as those who have the authority from Christ, and the ability of that authority to be passed through their successors. The idea of apostleship and what it entails is one of the biggest differences between Catholic/Orthodox churches and all other denominations.
In short, historic Christianity believes that the apostles not only received truth and knowledge from Christ, but also the authority to organize and direct the church, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is why we believe in Holy Tradition. We are free to acknowledge sin and error, but measure these against the consistent voice of the church through all ages, as made clear in the scriptures and ecumenical councils. Also, many of the issues you mention were sin, but not doctrinal in nature, and thus not part of Holy Tradition. Others were (and are) uniquely Catholic problems and form part of the reason I'm not Catholic, even though I have respect for them as an apostolically-founded church.
@@gigahorse1475 As an aside, I also think it's worth noting that the church had already existed for three hundred years before the canon of Scripture was closed, so it's hard to argue that the church was right about the canonization of the Scriptures but wrong about all the other stuff. Due to the patristic sources I mentioned, I don't believe that there ever was a time before the church built up traditions. Most of the New Testament is comprised of letters written by the apostles to churches they had already founded and lived with, sometimes for years. St. Paul reiterates this authority throughout the entirety of the Epistle to the Galatians. I don't see how it's reasonable to say that the letters he wrote carry divine authority but the traditions that our earliest sources attribute to the apostles are not also divinely authoritative.
Sorry for the huge word dump, I just really enjoy talking about this stuff!
I just subscribed, I've viewed multiple videos and I have found the tool of your channel helpful in faith "trust" in christianity.
Thanks Brice! Appreciate the encouragement!
When a person’s volition blinds him, no facts can ever sway him
This channel is so underrated.
The Wise Disciple looks like he got tipsy sipping juice. 😆
Thanks!! It was water, tho 💦 😉
Very cool analysis. Subbed
11:40 the one part I have an issue with as a Catholic - Protestants were not exempt from atrocities towards Catholics either
Good point! I spoke too quickly there.
@@WiseDisciple Humble. Subbed
24:20 "Well I'm not biased!" Allow me to introduce you to a term coined by Adam Grant called the 'I'm-not-biased' bias...
32:10 "It's as if [Ra is] not listening."
There it is.
Lol! There it is!
Yo, WD got a comment from Luke Barnes. He's starting to get noticed!
Hey!! Love your content, I’ve been binging! I’m a Christian who does ministry to the LDS community and would love if you were to review the most recent debate between Aaron Shafovaloff and Kwaku El
Thanks for the suggestion (and the encouragement)! I’ll take a look.
I’d love to pick your brain about ministry to LDS. I’ve also been myself, difficult road
"Let me just make sure that I understand you correctly. Your sources don't substantiate the assertion that religiosity is the cause of the actions that we agree are harmful, you admit that you don't have any expertise in this area, yet we should grant greater credence to your appeal to personal anecdote than to this collection of clinical studies that disconfirm your assertion that were conducted by people who do have expertise in this area...and you're not biased..?"
... I've been snapping a IP for half an hour now , ra just couldn't. God help him ! Great video as usual! Keep it up !👍👍👍
Thank you! I will!
Aron Ra is painful to watch. Good job to IP for somehow tolerating this guy
Where was Aron Ra wrong? Please be specific.
@@jakec9522 on the definition of faith and so many others are since he made.
Every time Aron Ra asks "how is it not dangerous" you should respond with "how does God not exist?"...
Aron Ra has always been more of a polemicist than a formal debater, and it definitely shows here.
Also, please, please NEVER use the phrase "Ra is about to be mated" ever again! LOL.
LOLOLOL!! Whoops! 😉
I mean, it was accurate beyond the chess metaphor lol
Every time aronra inhales it is quite exaggerated. I imagine a Ren and Stimpy style gasping for air face overlaying his face 😂
Yeah, his microphone is picking up everything! 😄
What is Aron Ra's evidence that faith is belief without evidence in the context of Christianity?
24:30ish mark "i'm not biased! you can test me on that"
hahahaha wow bro
RA is so out of his league against IP. Atheists should be embarrassed
Both Catholics and Protestants killed each other over being labeled a heretic. Its not a Catholic only thing.
How is something not dangerous?
B/c there is no evidence to show that it is. That's how skepticism works.
Crusades. Your argument is invalid.
@@infinity7306 How do the Crusades prove the danger of religion?
@@duswil3934
Is that a serious question?
@@infinity7306 Did I seriously ask you to prove your baseless and ignorant assertion? Yes but I’m not expecting much since we both know you can’t.
@@duswil3934
'Crusades are dangerous.'
Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
Here's another one:
'Holy wars, such as the Jihads in the Islamic religion are dangerous'.
Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
This video was an absolute blast! IP, excellent job with your preparation (I need to go follow your channel right after this). Nate, I loved your commentary as always. Even just watching your facial reactions at certain points during the video was quite a hoot 😅
Ra lost this debate BAD.
Doesn't mean he was wrong in any of the points he made.
@@jakec9522 Wile someone can lost a debate and still make good arguments, due to their opponents superior rhetoric. It was not the case in this debate. Just look at how badly Ra lost his cool during the QA. It's literally the angry atheist meme now.
He also failed to challenge IP's arguments in a substantive way. feelings aren't facts that's why you have to use good data to back up your arguments.
As much as i dislike Aron Ra you know how awesome of a testimony he would have if he came to faith. I cant say he'd be a better debater but Angels will be rejoicing and so would I. Pray for his salavation as far away as we think that maybe our God is the God of impossible. On another note he most certainly lost this debate. Good job Mr Michael Jones you have certainly inspired philosophy for me and I thank the Lord Jesus for your work. Thanks for the breakdown Wise Disciple.
I never saw anyone NOT lose Aron Ra. Until Mike Jones. My opinion is that neither won or lost. They both absolutely kicked butt, both making super strong cases and both really holding their own. The worst part for Aron was that he just wasn't prepared for someone to fare so well against him.
I think Mike was the better debater. But Aron made some points in his opening statement that I think are very hard for Christians to contend with. When I saw this the first time, I didn't know who Mike Jones was. So I saw Aron's opening statement and thought that there was no way that this other guy was going to be able to contend with this. But then I was equally blown away by Mike. While, I don't think Mike necessarily addressed all of Aron's good points, Mike's own primary arguments were ones that Aron was really not equipped to counter.
I like how Mike points out how some things that are pragmatic are not necessarily true, and some things that are true are not pragmatic. This is a valuable point that Aron doesn't take into account and doesn't address as well as some other atheists I've seen in debates (like Sam Harris).
Anyhow, this debate is one of the reasons why I eventually came to the conclusion that Mike Jones is the only good Christian apologist. Other apologists keep repeating the same fallacious arguments over and over again, and it's just embarrassing. While I do disagree with Mike on some of his interpretation of quantum physics and neuroscience, I feel compelled to say that Mike stands in a league of his own, thinking for himself instead of just repeating other people's lame arguments.
Thanks for your take, Theosib! Appreciate it 👊🏼 What’s your absolute favorite IP debate?
@@WiseDisciple My favorite IP debate is the one against Kent Hovind.
Very cool, I’ll check it out!
"Mike stands in a league of his own, thinking for himself instead of just repeating other people's lame arguments."
You can definitely say that again. While I don't always agree with IP, as a Christian apologist he really stands out in terms of his debating skills, being one of the few Christian apologists who in my opinion definitely knows how to debate his religion and who also has a sizeable platform. And unfortunately, though I am a Christian I am going to have to agree with your sentiment that most Christian apologists' debating skills in particular to the faith absolutely suck. Worse yet most of the time when they are trying to defend the Christian faith quite a majority of them end up depicting GOD in such a way characteristic of a malignantly narcistic utterly complete monster or to put that another way that I'm guessing most would describe such a character with the aforementioned traits, evil.
By the way, what were some of AronRa's points that you thought were good?
@@user-ww7yh9ml8u I’d have to listen to Aron’s opening statement again. It was the best part of his side of the debate.
This was like LBJ vs me in basketball. IP was impressive with his knowledge base and pulling info quickly.
If Christianity is dangerous, should there be a higher percentage of criminals who are Christians and those who aren't? In prison, shouldn't there be a higher population of Christians than non-Christians?
Stats actually show that the majority of criminals are religious lol
@@kaiju4238 I'm a prison chaplain and I call bullshit on that. Don't know where you're getting your stats from but it's not true.
No that wouldn’t necessarily prove it, you would have to prove that Christianity what is the direct influence in them committing crimes, and this applies to any philosophy or ideology.
@@kaiju4238 doesn’t matter, and yeah of course they would be because they’re the majority of people.
I hope that everyone on both sides learn to debate respectfully and exchange logic with each other in a respectful manner.
(because without lies, Atheism dies)
Holy COW... I have a MAJOR problem with Aron Ra statement at about 30:00 ... "20-40% of Americas homeless youth are homeless because their Christian parents disavowed them on account of being gay or trans" (Paraphrase)
Im sorry but that reeks of BS. If I didn't have a business to run and had the time to see these peer reviewed studies and do a deep dive I would love to.
As a former heavy drug user who spent a lot of time in ghettos doing drugs with homeless people I GUARANTEE you that is not the reason they are homeless.
I however, would not be surprised if the homeless youth themselves cited that as a reason... Actually, I'd be stunned if they didn't.
You could do this thing where you look up sources on homelessness in youth, and learn that he's right.
Great vid, just found your channel, great to see in depth analysis of debates on here.
Btw, you should definitely review a debate with Graham Oppy, maybe the one between him and Andrew Loke or Rob Koons. There's some intellectual heavyweights going on there so it'd be cool to see!
Thanks for doing this one! 😊
My biggest critique of IP in this one is he lost control of his cross examination a few times and let Ra monologue and even let him ask IP questions during IP’s cross examination.
What do you think the best set up is for a debate? Should both have an opening, single rebuttal or more then one rebuttal? How do you think we should figure out who "wins" the debate - by a point system of who has less logical fallacies - or if either side had any then no one wins?
Do you think there are types of debates that are "pointless" - when/how do they become pointless?
Where do you teach debate? How does one become a teacher of debate? Would someone have to take a class on formal and/or informal logic before doing a debate class, or would debate class also cover that subject?
Hello, lot of questions here. Should I make a video on this in the future?
Also, where do I teach debate? I don't teach it anymore. I was a public high school teacher in Las Vegas before jumping into ministry. I've said this in the intros to these videos in the past.
How does one become a teacher of debate? I was asked to replace the previous teacher who was retiring and I jumped on board because I already had a little background in philosophy and logical fallacies. I think everyone should take a couple intro classes to logic and philosophy because I think it helps us all become better thinkers. Certainly a teacher of debate needs to be versed in valid reasoning and logical fallacies. But there's support set up for teachers in the valley here where all debate teachers meet (or, at least, they used to) in order to network and discuss tournament issues. That's where I got a lot of my early lesson plans as a newbie. Hope these answers helped! :)
I've been watching your archives lately and I think the debate material you provide ciuld be considered essential for growing apologeticists!
All of Aron Ra’s mouth breathing is very distracting! He needs a course in tactful discourse, he comes off as a know it all!
There are no demons, hobgoblins, elves, fairys, leprechauns, gnomes, ghosts, spirits, gods, angels, dragons, giants, cyclops, sea goats, mothmen, hydras, sirens, griffins, centaurs... Its all about mythology and folklore.
I would love to see you review Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein, or any number of James White’s debates.
I’ve got these on my list, thanks!!
Stein got obliterated. He was not prepared for a presuppositional debater.
pistis (the greek word they're talking about, that Aron said to not confuse with trust) *literally means trust*
Yes!!! A 34 minute video, so excited!
Just stating that you have been saying the same thing for the past 20 years doesn’t make you right. Ra clearly didn’t have anything to back up his argument. He just kept saying he knows what he’s talking about and wouldn’t address any factual evidence.
Ra once said he wouldn't believe Christianity even if it was true.
Why even bother discussing Jesus's Existence, Science, History and the Academic Definition of Faith
if Ra is already presupposing a clearly biased approach which is ironically dangerous to finding truth?
No wonder he said he's never been convinced for 2 decades.
Let's pray he has the chance to open his heart.
Really?? Wow.
@@WiseDisciple
Are you really gullible enough to believe that Aron said that verbatim? Ask him to cite that "quote", and them watch him stumble or run away.
@@infinity7306 Hey, hey, I'm just having a conversation over here. You say that never happened? Ok. @ScotsMaiar, Infinity730 says that never happened. Do you want to respond to this?
@@WiseDisciple
I am willing to bet the actual quote was something to the effect of "even if a god exists, and even if it's the Christian god, the bible is still wrong, and I would not worship that god because of ... (x,y,z) moral reasons...etc." Which is not the same as "if it was true, I wouldn't believe it".
@@WiseDisciple
Note: Gave him 3 days to respond and he ran away. Just as I predicted.
I'm very surprised you haven't covered any of Dr Kent Hovind's debates. He has even humiliated Aaron Nelson.
So no one is going to mention that Aron Ra looks like Undertaker in the thumbnail.
I think IP could have pressed harder on the claim that believing things that are not "scientifically proven" is dangerous or even wrong, because hard empiricism is a self-defeating epistemology.
Loved this
These are great, keep them up! You should take a look at the Hernandez/Zachariades vs Flowers/Pritchett debate on free will.
Aron Ra embarrassed himself in this debate.
That’s an understatement, at the end and the question answers,He did give one of the greatest responses of all time, to Eric Hernandez question about faith, not because his response was good or anything like that, because he completely dodged the question and instead spazzed out and had an emotionally charged rant, he can’t you can’t no one can I win.
Hideho. I'm new to your channel. Heard about you via Chad Gross on the Apologetix315 Podcast. Just a note about Christians killing heretics/etc., I must note that Protestants are not innocent of any blood spilled. Love your commentary, looking forward to viewing more.
It blows my mind how intelligent IP is, the way he answers questions and uses words I’ve never even heard before really makes me feel dumb at times lol, I would never been able to answer the questions the way he does, both you guys keep up the good work you’re doing for Christ!!
Hello WD!
just discovered your channel and I admit I was binge-watching yesterday evening😊 and was nodding my head and shoutn' AMEN til I came across your statements around 11:25 about us being grotesque 🥴 🥴
btw, thumbs up 👍 for your honesty!
i then remembered a thought I had long ago... i.e. ....the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the Deists, the Masons, the Bolsheviks, Dan Brown, the New Atheists, and some modern Protestants ALL are heirs to the early protestants' conviction that
1) our Lord lost control of history for basically a loooong time >1200 years
2) because our great... grandparents were either
a)stupid-enough or
b)evil-enough or
c) grotesque-enough to be Catholics
am I right?
(ALL these groups share the same distaste for delving into medieval history unless it can be somehow used to discredit the Catholic Church)
your BBFF (best baddie friend forever)
kc
Sorry about that! I don't remember saying Catholics are grotesque, but I did speak quickly in the video. There are people in both camps, who didn't represent these camps well, who did awful things. How about that?
@@WiseDisciple
>>who did awful things...mistakes were made...😊
(btw, I am very honored that you responded!)
I won't take much of your time, but I think we 3rd millenials do often forget that medieval kings (even many early Protestant kings) thought that stealing a person's immortal soul was a more serious crime than stealing their purse or even their mortal life....Hence they (Cath. and Prot.) acted accordingly.
It wasn't all brutaity. There was also much beauty in the way sovereigns thought of their people as literally their own children for whose welfare they were reponsible AND for which a sovereign could fry in hell if he were derelict.
There are touching examples of the close bond they felt to their people... if you are a veteran you might appreciate that many medieval monarchs perished in battle because they didnt just send their people off to war--- they LED them... another good example of this closeness which was simply the opposite of grotesque was the Holy (Maundy) Thursday ceremony where most medieval kings washed the feet of beggars. (with very little social distancing) This practice has disappeared with modernity. as has that leading-into-battle thing..
a Tudor princess was one of its last practitioners....
>>> in all her movements and gestures, and by her manner, she seemed to act thus not merely out of ceremony, but from great feeling, and devotion. Amongst these demonstrations there was this one remarkable, that in washing the feet she went the whole length of that long hall, from one end to the other, ever on her knees
@@WiseDisciple
now you must accept my apology!
i just reviewed my long winded "riposte" and i never acknowledged your humble apology. it certainly was NOT necessary but I remain very touched.
Where did the Catholic Church (Catholic History) teach it was ok to murder heretics?
Where was it doctrinal or dogmatically proclaimed to do so? especially when you said "in the text which all Christians accept as authoritative..."
I think that it is a thing to learn from in this video is the amount of grace and patience IP has when conversing with Ra and does not take the bait he presents when he starts jabbing at his personality or looking at other people. He addresses the topic and does so with with I think many Godly traits. He does not answer a fool according to his folly so address the rabbit holes Ra brngs up and emotional jabs. He listened and listened well before the debate and during the debate at Ra's points and before He spoke. He controlled his emotions and when they were flaring they were in random with the Spirit of truth and grace since many of us would just lose patience with Ra and go wth well you are going to Hell Ra, you wicked unregenerate man and enjoy the fact rather then pray and mourn the fact like Christ. May the Lord continue to bless IP and his ministry offline and online.
The Hell factor , the concept , is what sets Ra off. He's,I believe, implicitly attacking that in his debates. The fire in the belly. Justifying Hell because some one disagrees, even stridently with anyone, OR God, to me is the epitomy of closed mindedness. It's just seems well, incomprehensible.
@@chriswest8389 It is about objective morality and objective reality which to an extent is closed off like everything else. What you said is like a murderer disagreeing on imprisonment because he just disagrees with the morality of his actions. Understand it's not the equivalent of taste like in art. Rather it's like do I have to love my parents? I don't think I do, oh you disagree. Well, you are closed-minded and bigoted. What you said is like that but worse. You need to understand who God is and why refusing Him is evil not a matter of I just disagree.
@@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv I'd prefer good old ' subjective morality. Kinder and gentler. If Darwinism is true, that's the fact. It explains morality very well. Thank you for your reply
God bless this ministry as well as Inspiring Philosophy
I don't think Ra understood the topic of the debate. Ra never addressed the point.
I would love to see you take on Aaron Nelson
What irked me from the time I first saw this debate was how Ra defined faith in his own words, to represent something that was not the traditional perspective of faith. What I wish IP had done was just throw his hands up and say, "fine, you can have your definition of faith. But that doesn't erase the concept that I am describing by the word 'faith'."
Even if definitions change, even if society uses words differently over the ages, the need for new words or revived words to represent concepts is still there.
'Gay' may not mean 'happy', as it did once, but that doesn't mean we don't have a word to describe happiness. And so, Aaron Ra may have his own definition of 'faith', but that doesn't mean that IP's faith (in the traditional sense), doesn't exist.
Christians (and other believers) want to believe that faith is describing a reasonable expectation, yet when it comes to the usage of the word, it is always describing a belief that is held without the expectation of it being demonstrated as true, rather instead preferring to believe something without criticism or scrutiny of any kind, making it by definition, unreasonable. It is always a complete and firm trust in a claim that is not able to be determined as accurate, and asserted as true without any verification of any kind.
There is no theological way of getting around this, and believers who try are simply lying to themselves.
@@infinity7306 Except for the fact that Jones debunked the idea the Doubting Thomas and Hebrews 11 as proof that the Bible promotes blind faith. Plus, you can find examples of verses appealing to evidence like Acts 17:11, John 20:31, Matthew 9:5-6 (Where he heals a paralytic to prove his divinity), Isaiah 1:18, 1 Peter 1:18, and others. It's demonstrably false to say that the Bible says that we should believe it without evidence
@@petery6432 Evidence for resurrection is a hearsay since it was written like 70+ years after his resurrection. Where we expect life expectancy to be like 30.
@@dimitrifake53 Your standard exceeds that of historical experts. Do you realize the sheer volume of manuscripts for the New Testament compared to other historical documents? Let me tell you...or better yet, show you. Here is an infographic based on scholarly sources that compares New Testament manuscripts to other manuscripts.
visualunit.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/nt_reliability-1.pdf
@@zachhecita What should one derive from that?
That its the most written thing?
Because there is so much written dosent mean its right.
8:46 that's what faith is.
This is going to be lit 🔥
By "lit" I can only assume you are referring to IP's pants on fire.
@@infinity7306 ?
@@infinity7306 where did he lie?
@@charles4208
This is the first response to IP's dishonesty.
th-cam.com/video/gEDqME575AE/w-d-xo.html
And here is the second, after he failed to learn his lesson.
th-cam.com/video/vFZDDvtJcjc/w-d-xo.html
@@infinity7306 Aron ra doesn’t understand what faith is.
th-cam.com/video/sPIVsOl8sh4/w-d-xo.html
Aron Ra's statement at the 9:30 mark reminds me of a scene from the 1997 film Contact starring Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey. Foster's character, Eleanor or Ellie, was raised by her widowed father who nurtured her interests in science. As an adult, she meets Palmer, theologian portrayed by McConaughey. They form a friendship. At one point Ellie tells him that she needs proof and evidence. After some thought, Palmer asks Ellie if her father loved her. She answers with an emphatic yes. He says "Prove it." She thinks and responds with, "I can't."
It's located inside the first baptist bar and grill. 🤔
Instead of “happy hour” they have “joy hour”! Ha!
@@WiseDisciple Only the departed Tim wilson know about this Church.
Warning a few naughty words, but easier than listening to Aron Ra.
th-cam.com/video/pb-0NYA9KGs/w-d-xo.html
It just goes to show, you can defend the indefensible if your a clever apologist. Pulling silk from a soews ear is a prequesite.
Aron is strong in the evolution niche, but here he is a clumsy layman.
Yes he's not enough of an expert in made-up bullshit 🙄
I spoke with Ra on one of his videos about a Satanist get together in a city hall somewhere, I said it was odd that an Atheist would be part of a religious group of any kind, he responded with not only is he a member of the satanic temple, but also the jehovah's witnesses and other religious beliefs so he can better argue with Christian apologists. My response was " I don't understand how you can use other religious beliefs against Christianity when most have little to nothing to do with Christianity." To which his response was basically " I don't". He's so tied up with not having a position on any one subject that it's harder to debate a strawman than him. Last I saw the comments where still up, it was a short conversation, which was disappointing ,but I wasn't expecting a whole lot with someone of his caliber who can't over talk someone with a written comment.
Does Ra have any content where he defends his version of scientism, where in order for anything to be true it must be scientifically verifiable? Has this man never heard of metaphysics? Does he know how incoherent he sounds when he attempts to coerce Christians to explain metaphysical, moral, and spiritual beliefs by materialistic metrics? Good gracious this is infuriating.
It's also ironic to think he depends on the very Metaphysics he denies for Reasoning, Morality, knowing that other minds exist, aesthetic judgements and Convictions of Truth like for science itself.
@@ScotsThinker @ScotsMaiar
How is metaphysics related to reasoning? Or morality? Or knowing other minds exist? Or aesthetic judgements? Or truth?
As Eric Hernandez said, "Saying there is no scientific evidence for a God is like saying plastic doesn't exist because a metal detector can't find plastic."
@@campfireaddict6417Metaphysics: "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space." Literally the first google definition for metaphysics.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Here's an article that answers most of your questions specifically relating to the definition of metaphysics.
@@petery6432 You can say the same thing about anything. Are you going to say the same thing about dragons?
Bruh that bell had me cracking up every time it went off.
Ra has a definition of evidence and faith that he seems to have concocted sometime while high on LSD.
Why are those definitions wrong?
@@jakec9522The problem is not so much the words he uses to define faith. The real problem is his unspoken definition which can be inferred from the way he argued. I get the impression that for him faith is belief and confidence in things he personally considers silly. He is defining faith in terms of his own beliefs.
Aron's superstar status on the neoathiest stage reveals something deeply rotten. I knew this back when I was a paleoatheist, before I became a Christian.
Aron thinks shaping what someone believes is worse than judging them on their morality?
I'm sorry, but on what planet is your moral expression not a product of what you believe? How does Aron propose we inculcate morality without also shaping belief?
Does Aron not murder, not because he thinks it's wrong, but because he's letting Western values restrain him despite his personal conviction otherwise?
This dude is talking nonsense.
Basically what he saying is murder is wrong because I don’t like it, so if somebody does like murder would that make it right.
EVERY human lives by faith in its broadest, truest sense = "con fide" confidence = "with faith."