Dan Barker tore him to shreds. Met Dan a few years ago here in town at an event, very nice man. His book "Godless" and "God The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction" are excellent.
@@mikerodgers7620 You might want to read The Bible Dilemma and The God Virus, or the other books just to see if you might just be wrong. Guilt and fear are 2 main drivers of religion. I don't believe what you believe. Maybe Islam is the real thing--infidel. lol
Just a couple of comments: 1) Ignorance or personal incredulity fallacy 2) Special Pleading fallacy 3) God of the gaps fallacy. Yes, Dr. Mcintosh: you presented ZERO evidence for your position and miserably failed. Preaching did not help either. Speaking louder, inciting fear was even worse.
The funny thing is how all these fallacies are being used as if they ever were law. These "fallacies" don't always apply such as the slippery slope "fallacy". Time and time again the slippery slope has been proven correct. Such as with the lgbt movement which is closer and closer to a pedo movement. Let me tell you something, people made up these "fallacies". Although I agree with most such as the strawman, you lot just chuck them out with no real context now.
A note about special pleading. It's not always a fallacy. Many a doctor has harmed me by thinking what I to!d them was a lie, special pleading. My kids too. So special l!heading isn't special pleading when it comes to certain things, but try and tell a new PCP that, or a new surgeon, and they think you're a wing but bc they don't bother reading the MRs you had to send to see them...they don't even read them. Special pleading is necessary so.etimes. I'm human they say, but what helps you wou!d cause me to come apart, what helps me wou!d hurt you in a lot of cases.
dan barker is disappointingly weak in the Q&A segment. for example, when asked: - how did the universe come in2 existence?? or: - how did the 1st atom come in2 existence?? he should have answered by the ultimate question: how did god come in2 existence??, which he didn't. dan, you should always insist on this question.
There were some things that I was afraid Dan wasn't going to address that I knew he could address. I'm glad he made the points he needed to in his conclusion.
I've watched many of these debates. So many times the theist starts ranting, raving, talking fast and loud. And they all like to ignore the despicable things it says in the bible. Theists aren't doing their cause any favors with these debates. I hope they keep doing them.
Google 'Cognitive Biases' and prepare to weep in despair, the heavily indoctrinated and well groomed theists come away from every debate thinking that they were on top of it, just read the comment section of any debate on here and you will see it for yourself.
In Jamaica slaves and a few scholars suggested the slaves were humans. They were cut in 4 quarters and distributed to the villages. Truth has some bearing on what we come to believe. Time, proximity, existing beliefs, and geography are more influential.
Dan actually was a Christian for more than 10 years. I don't know the exact number but he actually cared whether or not his beliefs were true. You sir, Mr. McIntosh, do not care about the truthfulness of your beliefs. You just like your beliefs because it brings you comfort in death. This is what I sense in all religions. These people are so petrified of death that they would rather still cling to these ridiculous fairy tales.
Why would God, if he's beyond the restraints of the physical, natural universe, make the machinery of life so immensely complex? The complexity seems right in line with an unguided system that had billions of years to evolve operating on the first forms of life that had enough variations from which natural selection could then operate on. Why should there be a 'why' we are here beyond what meaning you give it for yourself. The physical universe doesn't owe us a 'meaning'. If it's just is a physical process that happened, there's no obligation to provide us 'meaning'. Morality is perfectly understandable in terms of the selective advantage it would have provided a social species as we evolved. We depend on each other to survive & have empathic abilities to understand that treating each other well, & cooperating, is an advantageous strategy for a social species living in a cruelly hostile physical world.
Whenever a theist becomes blatantly dishonest in the furtherance of his position, it only confirms the lack of an “objective morality” proscribed by any “creator”.
@@boogiman14 What are you angry and sad about then? I'm angry this apologist gets paid to make excuses and that makes me sad, by the way.(that way you don't ask me)
I don't know how many do, what does seem likely is those that do, aren't much different than the apologist's in these debated where they end up preaching as that have no training in debating. Only talking to other cultist's pretending make-believe is real.
Andy McIntosh is preaching to his congregation. He is not presenting shreds of evidence or arguments towards the issue of the debate. He has no idea what is a formal debate is, He is completely out of topic. He is talking nonsense. Thank you.
Of course, then he'd not be a believer. "I have evidence", then production of this isn't the initial beginning. Because they have zero good evidence, only vapid arguments without support.
McIntosh debate is Ad hominem after Ad hominem after Ad hominem. He argues the Hebrew Bible which rejected Jesus as the messiah. He even tripped on his own statements. Face palm!
2019 and we’re still debating the existence of an invisible man in the sky floating on a cloud...??? Why don’t we debate the existence of the sun...??? Oh, that’s right - the sun actually exists...!!!
Because pretending make-believe is real is the sooth he sells himself which keeps him from actually being driven to investigate things, ideas or concepts that would lead to actual discoveries.
5 Beliefs Christianity wants you to believe but can’t provide one shred of proof: 1. An Invisible God who looks like humans. 2. A man made from clay and a woman made from his rib. 3. Talking animals like Donkeys and Snakes. 4. A man who walked on water, raised the dead, and who’s dead body awoke and ascended to the Heavens. 5. A wonderful afterlife where our Fantastical Human Dream of Living FOREVER Comes True! Absolutely Incredible how people will automatically believe these things just because they read it in an Ancient Book🤦♂️.
Cleo Fierro Jesus loves you. Not me, though. Cause apparently he’ll be sending me to hell just because he’s so goddamn good at playing at hide and seek that I can’t believe his story. All he’d have to do is show me that he exists and I would believe, but he won’t. Tell you what. Figure out your favorite argument for god, then look up a few refutations to that argument. Then think about both arguments HONESTLY. I know thinking honestly is a problem for a lot of religious people, and I understand why. I used to be the same way. I used to be a Christian wholeheartedly, but it just never made any logical sense to me, even as a child. But I was too afraid to question anything. So I just prayed harder. But eventually, after seeing that prayer wasn’t helping at all, I questioned. And then all I could see was how nonsensical it all was. All the cliches and platitudes that religious people give are just meaningless, vague fluff that only serves to make people feel better about already believing.
Cleo Fierro you’re right, there are Christians that don’t believe in hell. So what? Most do. No two believers agree on every subject. So does that mean atheists can’t criticize ANY part of Christianity because there’s probably a Christian out there that doesn’t believe that part? Give me a fucking break. I think the fact that you believers don’t agree says a lot about your supposed holy book. If it was the word of god then he’s a terrible author if there’s this many contradicting interpretations.
You are absolutely correct. It other words, it is psychotic to believe in a deity or god. If one believes in a invisible being, it's delusional which is psychotic! (I stole this idea from Sam Harris lol).
"The science that we know", as McIntosh like to blurt out, only shows how complex certain things are. It doesn't in any way prove that there is a god responsible for it. There is no scientific evidence FOR god, and pointing out the complexity of molecules, biological organisms and other aspects of reality, is and will always be a god-of-the-gaps-argument.
It is not possible to prove God using science unless we are proving a created god. God is higher than us human. Science is good to discover the magnificent creation from God. Science gives evidence of God existence through examine the properties and law that govern His creation. If biological organisms are formed through what Darwin's theory say by random selection, then a cell should act this way now and another way later depend on the condition rather then in a consistent way. History and some early culture and civilization also show evidence especially in the Chinese characters which tell the story of Genesis.
"It is not possible to prove God using science unless we are proving a created god." Science is all we have. Science is the method by which we examine reality in all possible aspects. There is nothing else. If we would stumble upon a better or more refined method to gain knowledge, it would automatically become part of science. So science can't examine or prove god(s)? Fine, than nothing can and there isn't any reason to believe in a god.
John Anonymous _it would automatically become part of science._ Exactly...science is a culmination of human knowledge...which is exactly why we cannot find God with science...lol _So science can't examine or prove god(s)?_ Sure it can...but then it would automatically become part of science so you will never be able to find God with science because God IS science. You are looking at the forest and cannot see it for the trees. _Fine, than nothing can and there isn't any reason to believe in a god._ One of the most important reasons for believing in God is to keep us humble and always searching for God in the gaps of human wisdom. When humans become proud and boastful the next step required to keep them there is to demonstrate power over others and that is where they always fail because the demonstrations result in deaths or human suffering. When we remain humble and seek God with that humility we do not become boastful and our pride doesn't lead us to killing those we think we have power over. There...I just gave you 7.x billion reasons to believe in God.
"...science is a culmination of human knowledge...which is exactly why we cannot find God with science..." I'd figure that if god exists and can be known, god will be part of 'human knowledge', by definition. "So science can't examine or prove god(s)? Sure it can...but then it would automatically become part of science so you will never be able to find God with science because God IS science." Get your concepts and definitions straight. You are using mixing up two different meanings of science here. First the method and second the culminated body of knowledge. These are not the same and not interchangeable. "You are looking at the forest and cannot see it for the trees." You should put that one on a tile. And the rest of what you're saying is just totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Complexity is not the hallmark of design, simplicity is. If you think intelligent design is a feasible explanation for the diversity of life on earth you simply haven’t looked at the evidence or your theology has prevented you from thinking critically.
Well, nice try at logic but that would mean the space shuttle is simple...buildings are simple...vehicles are simple... Have you ever built a space shuttle, building, or vehicle? Just working on a new vehicle requires years of training...working successfully requires constant upgrading. How is that simple?
@@peli_candude554 Nice try at thinking, but you really should try thinking waaay harder. The complete statement is: [given the function], simplicity is the hallmark of design. May the force of IQ>80 be with you. Hopefully.
@@Conserpov Nice try at oneupmanship but I was responding to the statement above. Thank you for offering your services but I have enough IQ for both of us. I''m sure you will find something useful for your low IQ brain. Wal-Mart is always looking for doorstops.
@@Conserpov I'm sure that even with your limited IQ even you can see how one post is responded to. If the full statement had been posted as you say it should have been then I may have responded differently. But, then again...maybe not!
One thing I always love to do when arguing for Christians is to put up a fake argument for Hinduism. Lord Brahma is the creator god of Hinduism and its always funny to hear their response when I ask why its implausible for Brahma to be behind the insane complexity of the universe instead of the Christian god.
The sophistication and complexity of the building blocks of life could be an argument against an intelligent all powerful designer....one would think an all powerful creator would simply create life with less complicated process... heck, even the Christian bible would disagree with process. If my memory serves me correctly, apparently the creator created life (particularly mankind) simply breathing into dirt...
@ Tony Vega... right, and I love when creationists keep repeating the false claim that science says we came from a rock... they need to actually read that bible they love to thump
dirt is actually quite complex. take a shovel, go out into the backyard, poke it into the ground and turn over as much as the shovel will allow. contained therein are more micro-organisms than human beings that have ever walked the earth. complexity or simplicity demonstrate nothing divine or otherwise. the heavy lift is still to be done.
I'm always surprised that lightweights like McIntosh, Craig, and especially Desouza have the confidence to occupy a stage to argue against atheists, even relatively average atheists. They always revert to the same accusations, ad hominem attacks, claims that their opponent just "doesn't understand", etc., and in the case of this McIntosh character launching into a Sunday-school level sermon. They all end up pathetic losers, clearly demonstrating only their lack of credible arguments. It's like Christianity is caught in a bear trap, and slowly and painfully bleeding to death.
"Can you explain how the very first atom came?" Why can´t people understand that both answers are equal. "I don´t know" "It was God" And how do we know they are exactly the same? By asking how. Let's see: "Can you explain how the very first atom came?" - I don´t know. - But do you know how it was made?"- No, I don´t. "Can you explain how the very first atom came?". It was God. - But do you know how he made it?" - No. I don´t. The logic is: saying that you know WHO made it is the same as knowing NOTHING made it, since you can´t take anything out of it. This should be logic to everyone. And unfortunately it isn´t.
Not really. 'I don't know' says I don't have information, and does not communicate a position. 'It was God' says I know what it was, and I take the position that it was specifically a consciousness I call God.
Science doesn't have answers to everything and on the other hand, religion claims to know all the answers and is prideful in it which makes it even more disturbing. What's more honest? To say I don't know where life came from or making up some character, Mr. Magic Man, created it.
As for the comfort of prayer, how comforting is it to believe your loved one, who never asked Jesus into his heart, is forever suffering in eternal torment?
What strikes me the most in Christians, or believers in general, is that huge leap from position, "some diety must have had created all this atoms" to "it was Jesus Christ with his father and Mary the virgin". It's bigger jump than any of the missing links of Darwin's theory.
An atheist doesn't assert life can come from non-life. That right there is associating two completely different things and is a fallacy. There are no requirements for an atheist to accept science. There are no requirements for humans to understand where life came from. If we don't know, then we don't know. It's dishonest to plug a god in there and pretend like you know where life came from.
Andy McIntosh is so very frustrating to listen too. As for the question about the creation of the first atom, Dan could have asked who created the creator.
So really, when it gets down to it, we have offended a Hebrew deity (largely by some sort of monkeying about with alcohol or sex) and as a result we are in need of a supernatural rescue, all of which shows up in the equations one might study in a graduate program in thermodynamics at any well regarded university. Now, I can go make a sandwich and enjoy the remainder of my evening.
dan barker is disappointingly weak in the Q&A segment. for example, when asked: - how did the universe come in2 existence?? or: - how did the 1st atom come in2 existence?? he should have answered by the ultimate question: how did god come in2 existence??, which he didn't. dan, you should always insist on this question.
@@soriya011 But you already answered it...he didn't...God is, was, and always will be...God. The Bible says so... Atheists claiming you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible are using the Bible to disprove the Bible...which is also not allowed. Prove that life came into being without God or that it is not designed. So far all I've heard is speculation based on...opinion and special pleading that there is no God in the gaps because humans have all the answers or expect to some time...some time .... Some time...
You do realize that the world, thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics and everything else was there before humans were, right? We didn't make any of it, we can only study it and most of it we are so out of understanding that we still don't know most of it. We can go and make a sandwich is about it. So when the creator of the universe tries to tell us something we screw it up and do the opposite of the recommended course of action. It takes a very patient and powerful God to not simply wipe us our and try again...maybe what happened to the Dinosaurs too...
Typical. To say scientists or atheists aren't taking this issue seriously is offensively dismissive and typical of the judginess these people often demonstrate.
Early on, McIntosh openly admits that he's not going to take any arguments against himself seriously; but he will treat them "tongue in cheek". For example around 10:30. Foolish and misguided man. 'Belief' can be a terrible thing.
Respect the PROCESS. Do not disturb the PROCESS. These debaters understand the PROCESS. Do not disrespect the PROCESS. Yawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
@joeturner9219 “The thing is, no one can "prove God" just like no one can "disprove" God. God is FAR above our finite brains and His Ways are higher than ours” There’s no way you can justify or back up this statement. Anyone who speaks on the behalf of a supposed supreme being is supremely arrogant
Things that are designed are made with simplicity to keep from using up a lot of energy, (Well a smart designer would make it with that in mind) not with complexity which would make whatever it is being disgned more problematic
Something is either true or it isn't. I am astonished that there are still so many supposedly rational adults that buy into these pernicious fairy tales. Time for humanity to grow up.
Christian apologists are pretentious, lying assholes. They pretend to be superior because they defends the rights of a fetus. But when it comes to the millions of children raped by Christian clergymen, they have nothing to say except, "don't go to the police."
The really crowning point of his failure (McIntosh's) was (2:16:47) when he complains that nobody has ever seen a star form, which by extension goes on into "nobody observed the Big Bang." So he his saying that Science is just wrong because unless you observe it, you can't claim it happened. Which is hilarious, because he doesn't demand the same burden of proof for God's Creation of the Universe. Was McIntosh actually present to observe God creating the Universe in seven days? Was he present when Jesus was crucified? Was he present when Jesus rose from the dead? (Which incidentally puts the lie to Jesus's sacrifice by God, since God can't sacrifice anything if he can just bring it back 3 days later.) But the Observer argument works both ways. Fortunately (not so much for Religion), we have lots of people who have been trained to be able to deduce how things work from observation. Religion can only make claims based on 2,000 year old writings by unknown authors. Maybe if the Bible got updates every few years or decades, we might have a better chain of evidence for the things written in it.
What really got under my skin the whole time (i listened to the whole thing) is McIntosh constantly used a god of the gaps fallacy. He CONSTANTLY used it. He never had an evidence based argument, and anytime Dan called him out on it, he said "no it isn't" and then used yet another fallacy. One thing he kept harping on was that the beginning of life or the beginning of the universe is a pivotal point. No it ISN'T! You don't know how it happened and neither do we, but because we don't know he wants to yet again use a God of the gaps argument. "Ha! You don't know where all this stuff came from, therefore God!" It doesn't matter if we can't explain it, it does not prove God exists simply because we can't answer a question. I cannot count the number of times he pulled that shit throughout this debate.
Ronald Stepp Have you been following the information on Quantum Physics, Quantum Biology, and Consciousness? They are exposing our ignorance on how the world works and most are claiming that we will never truly understand our world with our current way of thinking and our limited powers of observation. What they are really saying is as much an admission of really not knowing as religion says. According to the Bible God told us we will never understand how He did anything...and now the scientists are realizing that the complexities are nothing short of baffling. So where does that actually leave us? I am no genius myself but I do understand the concepts better after indulging in dozens of hours of listening to what they say. One thing that stands out in my mind is that we have the power to create our realities to suit our biology and to make ourselves happy. We create our own reality. What that tells me is that if I believe in God and that makes me happy and doesn't actually hurt anyone else directly (unless they choose to be hurt by what I believe) then there is nothing actually wrong with that way of thinking. If my way of thinking makes me a calmer and happier person and I am respecting the beliefs of others that are not trying to do anyone harm or upsetting the delicate balance we have in society then I can only see that as being in harmony with the world around me. So who then is really trying to upset the delicate balance and who is causing all the problems we have in the world today? I can only see it as those who are struggling to be the alpha humans that want to have everyone do as they think we should be doing. Those include atheists that insist we have to get rid of religion to make the world a better place. Christians want to get rid of things that kill others and enslave them. Things like abortion and human trafficking are good places to start and if we don't agree on that it might be a good "morality check" for anyone who disagrees. I'd like to see better population control but not at the expense of killing 50 million babies every year.
@@peli_candude554 Your logic is a bit flawed here Peli. You make some statements and flow from one point to another that aren't connected at all. You start with quantum etc etc and end at abortion = killing babies, which isn't true. Let's go over a few things. Religion that's about elevating yourself, and being a good person, charitable, loving, and accepting people for who they are, has never been a problem for anyone but other religious people. Muslims for example throughout history, haven't accepted people that hold to a different religion, and it's even worse for me an atheist. I'm still the least electable and least trusted group in the United States that there is. That's a fact. How many open and out atheists can you name that hold public office? There are quite a few of every other group though, except perhaps for trans people, but they're about .06% of the population, compared to an estimated 5-8% of atheists. All around the world different religious groups are killing each other right now. Hindus are even doing it, and nothing in their texts can even justify it, unlike other religions. Yes, Judaism and Christianity have had Reformations but the texts still say what they've always said. In spite of what you think about quantum mechanics, quantum theory, and the like, we are not able to create our own realities. That's a huge misunderstanding of what's been learned. It's a misinterpretation of the 'observer effect' from the Double Slit Experiment, and subsequent analogies etc that attempt to explain it. It concerns interactions, and how any interaction will determine what state the particle will "be in" once it's observed, and the probability of knowing it's properties before observation. Knowing one quality will make another quality extremely uncertain. Keep in mind this is my understanding from being a self taught individual. I do my best to not say anything that's way out of bounds though. How you end up at "abortion = killing babies" I honestly have no idea. That human life begins at conception I don't dispute. Conception is a stage in human development, yes. It's a zygote. So is an oocyte, a blastocyst, a fetus, then a baby, a toddler, a child, a teenager, adult, and old man. A zygote however is NOT a human being. At what stage of human development are you suggesting we usurp a woman's rights to her own body?
Ken Walter Thank you for the reply. Seems I almost forgot I even posted that. _You make some statements and flow from one point to another that aren't connected at all._ It may sound unconnected but the point was that as much as science and human wisdom has progressed, we still have no idea about most things to do with the human mind and spirituality. What I was responding to was the idea that as Ronald Stepp is making assumptions about how things are which are quite premature and possibly very inaccurate because we seem to be at a bit of an impasse as we delve deeper into QM research. I too am self taught and don’t claim to know anything specifically but by using the technique of consilience (meaning drawing ideas from several different unrelated areas) I started to form a picture of how we patch together our world and create our own version of reality. You can see that in other areas like religion where we have, literally, thousands of gods that all do things slightly different. My understanding of how that has come about is simply that we have a different God for every human because we all see something slightly different. 7.X billion gods. A perfect God/human Deo~biotic relationship. I’m still working through the fine points and trying to incorporate what we do know of how the brain works and by no means a completed work that anyone might pay attention to. Besides...we have millions of great minds working round the clock on these very things. _You start with quantum etc and end at abortion = killing babies, which isn't true._ You seem to somehow agree with that stance but with objections. _ Let's go over a few things. Religion that's about elevating yourself, and being a good person, charitable, loving, and accepting people for who they are, has never been a problem for anyone but other religious people._ There have always been atheists. That is why there was a “cleansing’ that many atheists consider the immorality of God in the Bible. The Flood represents such an act. Which I find somewhat funny and ironic that atheists would call God the immoral one because they are acting immorally yet they strive to eliminate religion in some countries with this exact strategy. Kill them all....end of conflict. _Muslims for example throughout history, haven't accepted people that hold to a different religion, and it's even worse for me an atheist. I'm still the least electable and least trusted group in the United States that there is. That's a fact._ Yes, I’m aware of that fact. But God knows there are those who have been elected that acted less morally than any atheist would act. _How many open and out atheists can you name that hold public office_ None. According to Christopher Hitchens we are all atheists…with just one less god to not believe in. _There are quite a few of every other group though, except perhaps for trans people, but they're about .06% of the population, compared to an estimated 5-8% of atheists._ And now Trump wants to eradicate the trans term from society. Seems he goes from one conflict to another with hardly a care... _All around the world different religious groups are killing each other right now._ Yes, religious conflicts are common. Not to mention the rumours that many are stirred up by atheists, but that’s another “story”. _Hindus are even doing it, and nothing in their texts can even justify it, unlike other religions. Yes, Judaism and Christianity have had Reformations but the texts still say what they've always said._ And atheists are banding together to fight against religions so being religious doesn’t predispose us to engaging in conflicts. Being human predisposes us to siding with those we feel comfortable with and feeling comfortable includes being around those that share the same viewpoints. Atheists are just as “religious” in that sense as anyone else. Worse in the sense that most of them are followers of science and want to use science as the tool of destruction but all science really does is lets us understand the classic world that “God created”. We are not "creators" but rather we are 'destroyers" that like to pretend we are creating. _In spite of what you think about quantum mechanics, quantum theory, and the like, we are not able to create our own realities._ True…we cannot “create” anything beyond our perceptions. But we most certainly can perceive things so different from others that we will go to war to defend our beliefs even if those beliefs are not vested in a God. _How you end up at "abortion = killing babies" I honestly have no idea._ Quite simply…that is what it is. _That human life begins at conception I don't dispute._ But that is what you proceed to do in the next statement by breaking down the phases of what constitutes a baby. The concept of God giving all life and humans not having a say in when or even how it should end is a hinge point of many discussions that have gone on for a long time. _At what stage of human development are you suggesting we usurp a woman's rights to her own body?_ The religious believe that all life has value and the non religious believe that well being is the most important concept of being human. When a human engages in sex and the result is another human life is conceived then who is the woman to make a choice that threatens the well being of a child growing inside of her?
@@peli_candude554 About that. I've just recently begun to get back into YT threads and forget to check how old comments are sometimes. I'm out of practice hehe. That said, I'm going to go with a single topic at a time. It makes for a better exchange imo. I make distinctions about stages of human development because that's what pregnancy physiology is based upon. The level of care changes dramatically. What the doctor expects to hear, see (in sonograms) chemical levels in the woman's blood/urine, where the zygote attaches, etc etc. It all matters. A human sperm is human obviously, but it's not a human being. Babies and children are born. Fetuses and zygotes are not, yet. I am well versed in what weeks the brain develops to point that we can call the fetus viable enough to grant it personhood, which is what this argument truly hinges on. I'm also aware of the pseudo-science trotted out in places like Texas especially. Happy to hear your thoughts.
A cartoonist creates a character. That cartoonist knows all about his created character The character that was created will never understand the cartoonist
Mr. McIntosh should be on CBN, not debating with rational beings. "To debate with someone who has renounced their use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
don't forget "the good people are going to heaven for all eternity, so what's so bad about a few years/months/weeks of dying of cancer?" or something like that.
@@tankbuggeru Remember: suffering makes you stronger!!! Offer up your suffering to our Heavenly Father who sent His Only Son to earth to suffer and die to forgive our sins!!!
"he makes himself invisible and beyond human comprehension" Sorry to say, but this is a cop-out. Theists claim to know all about god, his nature, what he wants, what pisses him off, etc., that's until you point out inconsistencies, incompetence, logical fallacies and his horrific deeds. Then, all of a sudden, god is "outside of space" and "time and mysterious. " Plus, god making himself invisible and beyond comprehension works against his stated goals.
Guitar dog you need to read the book flatland. By definition the cause for existence can’t be a part of existence it’s not a cop it’s a definition. The creator of time can’t be inside time, the creator of material can’t be material. Call it whatever you want prime mover, god, first cause that’s the definition
@@boogiman14 For a thing or agent to be both inside and outside of time is a useless paradox itself. Making this nonsensical and bereft of meaning, a deepity in other words.
Religion appears to be the only area in which using a bunch of unsupported assertions to support another batch of unsupported assertions is deemed to be a valid tactic.
Another point is if God defies logic, then how do you know he exists? Faith is the answer, right? Well faith is nothing but gullibility and wishful thinking. Sorry! All of your arguments fail. Now prove god using other methods instead of regurgitating the same old arguments.
MacIntosh is an example how delusional believes and ideas can control your mind. That such an intelligent man deceives himself (and others) with creationism is an insult to intelligence. But then, religion has little to do with how intelligent a believer may be; persistent religious believes perhaps tell more about the power of neuronal networks - once set up in early childhood- in maintaining themselves. I pity him.
How do you enter a debate where you are asked to make your claims and you spend your entire time attempting to disprove the other side before he has even spoken? Disproving the other side doesn't automatically make your side the correct one. You must prove your point first. Then rebuttal. Quoting Scripture to prove God is meaningless. It requires that you first already believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible's divinity. Dan stayed on point. This other guy thought he was teaching Sunday School. Preaching to the choir might give you warm fuzzies, but it will never get you any converts. I didn't hear one coherent argument proving God's existence. Not one. In 40 minutes. That alone is impressive. It's clear he assumes so many things. Uses random quotes, random verses and 'I'm right you're wrong' statements as if that were evidence of some kind. Doesn't stay on point. Case study in how not to debate a topic. I'm sure he's a great man, but despite his expertise, he showed his complete lack of understanding of the natural world and discussions of anything outside of his own belief system.
McIntosh speaks mind-grinding, embarrassing, patronizing gibberish. Also, who told that woman that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" she would see her dead son Philip again? Mindblowing.
Don't necessarily agree when Dan says our short lives are better more meaningful (because they are short) but IF heaven and a limetless powerful God were true. presumably he could make ''an eternity of bliss''.pretty easily. Not that I believe any of it,
But if (as the religious claim)the supernatural realm and an omnipotent god existed, earthly values wouldn't have to apply,but Dan seems to say in any circumstances a short life is better even if their claim was true.
@@frankwhelan1715 I see your point Frank and it's a valid one. It's not how short it is that makes the difference, it's that it's all we have imho that makes it more valuable. There are people that joyfully look forward, and work towards "end days" scenarios based on some scary ideological ideas.
Pay attention from1:04:50 up till 1:07:37 and hear who is crying in the background and see what the topic is about in that moment... then pause at 1:07:54 and see if you catch how GOD works in subtleties. "GOD looks down from heaven on the entire human race; HE looks to see if anyone is truly wise, if anyone seeks GOD." Psalm 53:2
Dan addresses the real life pain and disappointment experienced when the god we believed in and called out to in despair failed to appear when most needed. Our children still die, natural disasters still occur, mass shootings still happen No lofty, high minded opinion of god McIntosh proposes can heal our broken hearts or alleviate our overwhelming grief. McIntosh’s god is a failure just like every other near east god was before or since man invented YHWH. I buried my daughter and though I would love to think I will see her again some day, I know that is impossible and will not happen. I don’t believe trying to believe otherwise would bring me any comfort whatsoever. Dr. McIntosh epeatedly saying “Thelordjesuschrist” (all one word) cracks me up.
"Dan is refusing the science". Actually Dan mentioned that he has nobelist on his side who understands ATP mechanism far better than both of them. When Andy mentioned about his died child it was very emotional. I agree, when you lost someone close, you really want to believe it's not the end, but what strikes me in believers is their indifference for suffering and pointless existence of other spices.
Sa sampung sinabi ni Mcintosch, labing isa ang mali! Hahaha not even close, you better preach your perspective because it’s not relevant for a debate. Or you can talk to your grand children, they might believe
Andy doesn't realize that you can't preach and reason at the same time, without sounding like a dishonest salesman.
McIntosh lost at the first rebuttal when he started scream preaching fire and brimstone about gods wrath on America
A demagogue of the worst kind.
False dichotomy. Argument from ignorance. God pf the gaps. Emotional pleas. This guy didn"t argue. He preached.
Every debate with Dan Barker is a delight to listen to. He gives his opponents no wriggle room and they always fail to deliver.
th-cam.com/video/ZJ59KLsSOVs/w-d-xo.html
Baker is a babbling heathen idiot. You are as well.
Notice how every man Dan debates becomes visibly outraged and offended. 😂
Queen Frankenstein no when he debated Trent he got emotional turned back into a Protestant and started talking about priests and little boys
The truth will do that to these ignorant people who have "fixed beliefs".
Listening to Andy McIntosh gives me a headache.
Same...haha!
...and he's wrong
Same here.
Barking mad versus Dan Barker. This was like watching the answers in genesis versus Bill Nye debate.
Dan Barker tore him to shreds. Met Dan a few years ago here in town at an event, very nice man. His book "Godless" and "God The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction" are excellent.
He makes me to miss Christopher Hitchens even more, what a powerful character
Tore him to shreds? Maybe. Convinced? Nope.
@@thatomolemane6433 What's this tearing to shreds business no one has been torn to shreds just a difference of opinions. Very immature
It was the other way around. Heathens will BURN. YOU will burn.
@@mikerodgers7620 You might want to read The Bible Dilemma and The God Virus, or the other books just to see if you might just be wrong. Guilt and fear are 2 main drivers of religion. I don't believe what you believe. Maybe Islam is the real thing--infidel. lol
Andy McIntosh really lost all composure. He's just raving.
Just a couple of comments:
1) Ignorance or personal incredulity fallacy
2) Special Pleading fallacy
3) God of the gaps fallacy.
Yes, Dr. Mcintosh: you presented ZERO evidence for your position and miserably failed. Preaching did not help either. Speaking louder, inciting fear was even worse.
4) Straw man 5) Argument from ignorance 6) Ad hominems
The funny thing is how all these fallacies are being used as if they ever were law. These "fallacies" don't always apply such as the slippery slope "fallacy". Time and time again the slippery slope has been proven correct. Such as with the lgbt movement which is closer and closer to a pedo movement.
Let me tell you something, people made up these "fallacies". Although I agree with most such as the strawman, you lot just chuck them out with no real context now.
It works on minds that can pay money, stack bricks, and hold a weapon. That's all that is needed sadly.
A note about special pleading. It's not always a fallacy. Many a doctor has harmed me by thinking what I to!d them was a lie, special pleading. My kids too. So special l!heading isn't special pleading when it comes to certain things, but try and tell a new PCP that, or a new surgeon, and they think you're a wing but bc they don't bother reading the MRs you had to send to see them...they don't even read them. Special pleading is necessary so.etimes. I'm human they say, but what helps you wou!d cause me to come apart, what helps me wou!d hurt you in a lot of cases.
7) Argument from authority 8) Argument from popularity
It doesn't matter what the bible says. It is the CLAIM, NOT the proof.
McIntosh seems to assert that feelings are an important guide to reality.
dan barker is disappointingly weak in the Q&A segment. for example, when asked:
- how did the universe come in2 existence?? or:
- how did the 1st atom come in2 existence??
he should have answered by the ultimate question:
how did god come in2 existence??,
which he didn't. dan, you should always insist on this question.
There were some things that I was afraid Dan wasn't going to address that I knew he could address. I'm glad he made the points he needed to in his conclusion.
Only an Evangelical will threaten hell as a device to scare their opponents into submission :)
I've watched many of these debates. So many times the theist starts ranting, raving, talking fast and loud. And they all like to ignore the despicable things it says in the bible.
Theists aren't doing their cause any favors with these debates. I hope they keep doing them.
"Why are we here?" assumes purpose in the first place, therefor is begging the question.
side-note : Andy reminds me of that guy from Deadpool 2.
Another self deluded Apologist who doesnt understand Ancient History or Philosophy or Cosmology or reality!!
18th century priest debates 21st century atheist
Hold ur horses tonto, diest thiest and atheist all despise me equally.
@@SmallC2023 That's human nature😅
Za
People aren't stupid. After this debate everyone shoud have been convinced that McIntosh made less sense than Barker.
Google 'Cognitive Biases' and prepare to weep in despair, the heavily indoctrinated and well groomed theists come away from every debate thinking that they were on top of it, just read the comment section of any debate on here and you will see it for yourself.
People are stupid!
In Jamaica slaves and a few scholars suggested the slaves were humans. They were cut in 4 quarters and distributed to the villages. Truth has some bearing on what we come to believe. Time, proximity, existing beliefs, and geography are more influential.
Wrong. People are stupid
A M E N
McIntosh needs to grasp that you can have life without photosyntesis, oh wait, science found it already.
Dan actually was a Christian for more than 10 years. I don't know the exact number but he actually cared whether or not his beliefs were true. You sir, Mr. McIntosh, do not care about the truthfulness of your beliefs. You just like your beliefs because it brings you comfort in death. This is what I sense in all religions. These people are so petrified of death that they would rather still cling to these ridiculous fairy tales.
Arrogant, long-winded bloviator McIntosh. A lot of meaningless tripe, interspersed with baseless assertions.
@ X Million... and that's all McIntosh has got... if he's got no idea why he's here he should of had that "talk" with his dad about the birds and bees
1:10:54 ..'God was connected to a nation not like today'.. McIntosh is in fantasy land a la prayer breakfast.
Andy saying something is irreducible does not make it irreducible. Just more argument by assertion. 🧐
Andy McIntosh only sounds somewhat intelligent because he has an English accent. Take that away and he'd sound like Larry the Cable Guy.
😂😂😂 Absolutely!
Apologists are disingenuous because they don't actually debate(that takes compromise and possibly losing and learning) but defend the Faith
Sceptic Science you say the same things on every video
@@boogiman14
That's not an explanation of how that is wrong or incorrect.
Of course.
What else do they have, knowledge? 😒
Understanding?
A real method to determine what is true from not true?
McIntosh - peddling religious ignorance for money...!!!
Why would God, if he's beyond the restraints of the physical, natural universe, make the machinery of life so immensely complex?
The complexity seems right in line with an unguided system that had billions of years to evolve operating on the first forms of life that had enough variations from which natural selection could then operate on.
Why should there be a 'why' we are here beyond what meaning you give it for yourself. The physical universe doesn't owe us a 'meaning'. If it's just is a physical process that happened, there's no obligation to provide us 'meaning'.
Morality is perfectly understandable in terms of the selective advantage it would have provided a social species as we evolved. We depend on each other to survive & have empathic abilities to understand that treating each other well, & cooperating, is an advantageous strategy for a social species living in a cruelly hostile physical world.
For an ant anything seems too complex. What a laughable argument.
Whenever a theist becomes blatantly dishonest in the furtherance of his position, it only confirms the lack of an “objective morality” proscribed by any “creator”.
Do theists not watch these videos??? All the comments r from non-theists.
Jason Keith because only angry sad people take the time to write comments lmao
@@boogiman14
What are you angry and sad about then?
I'm angry this apologist gets paid to make excuses and that makes me sad, by the way.(that way you don't ask me)
I don't know how many do, what does seem likely is those that do, aren't much different than the apologist's in these debated where they end up preaching as that have no training in debating.
Only talking to other cultist's pretending make-believe is real.
Andy McIntosh is preaching to his congregation. He is not presenting shreds of evidence or arguments towards the issue of the debate. He has no idea what is a formal debate is, He is completely out of topic. He is talking nonsense. Thank you.
Of course, then he'd not be a believer.
"I have evidence", then production of this isn't the initial beginning.
Because they have zero good evidence, only vapid arguments without support.
abortion has ZERO to do with whether or not a god exists... literally no correlation.
god did abortions in the bible - pity theists have never read it
Kudos to the church or school. for leaving comments open. Very kind of them.
Atheist or believer these debates help all of us.
Too many stupid questions.
What can you expect from a person that believes in a talking snakes and donkeys.
@@JuanHernandez-ry9drGod said "POOFIE"!! 🤣.
1:48:07 Dan: So how do you define truth?
Andy: The lord Jesus Christ
Dan: [silently looks down at paper] hahahahaha
Dan really kicked his ass
McIntosh debate is Ad hominem after Ad hominem after Ad hominem. He argues the Hebrew Bible which rejected Jesus as the messiah. He even tripped on his own statements. Face palm!
Dan Barker talks common sense- he states facts as they are. A shining light on truth. When one is free form religious dogma. one is truly free.
Dan Barks up the wrong tree as usual.
2019 and we’re still debating the existence of an invisible man in the sky floating on a cloud...??? Why don’t we debate the existence of the sun...??? Oh, that’s right - the sun actually exists...!!!
All you can grasp is a floating leprechaun? That is way you cannot debate this.
I can't make sense of how learned individuals like Mr McIntosh could choose to believe in fairy tales as though they are reality
Because pretending make-believe is real is the sooth he sells himself which keeps him from actually being driven to investigate things, ideas or concepts that would lead to actual discoveries.
5 Beliefs Christianity wants you to believe but can’t provide one shred of proof:
1. An Invisible God who looks like humans.
2. A man made from clay and a woman made from his rib.
3. Talking animals like Donkeys and Snakes.
4. A man who walked on water, raised the dead, and who’s dead body awoke and ascended to the Heavens.
5. A wonderful afterlife where our Fantastical Human Dream of Living FOREVER Comes True!
Absolutely Incredible how people will automatically believe these things just because they read it in an Ancient Book🤦♂️.
The goatherder's guide, a compilation of fables which condone evil and atrocities while promoting racial supremacy and false promises.
Facts and logic destroys theist nonsense every time
@Theseustoo Astyages Give some facts regarding evolution?
@@rustione2603 you don't want facts, or else you could've googled them in about 3 seconds.
@@BigDaddyAddyMS No facts, just fill-ins according to theory.
Cleo Fierro Jesus loves you. Not me, though. Cause apparently he’ll be sending me to hell just because he’s so goddamn good at playing at hide and seek that I can’t believe his story. All he’d have to do is show me that he exists and I would believe, but he won’t.
Tell you what. Figure out your favorite argument for god, then look up a few refutations to that argument. Then think about both arguments HONESTLY. I know thinking honestly is a problem for a lot of religious people, and I understand why. I used to be the same way. I used to be a Christian wholeheartedly, but it just never made any logical sense to me, even as a child. But I was too afraid to question anything. So I just prayed harder. But eventually, after seeing that prayer wasn’t helping at all, I questioned. And then all I could see was how nonsensical it all was. All the cliches and platitudes that religious people give are just meaningless, vague fluff that only serves to make people feel better about already believing.
Cleo Fierro you’re right, there are Christians that don’t believe in hell. So what? Most do. No two believers agree on every subject. So does that mean atheists can’t criticize ANY part of Christianity because there’s probably a Christian out there that doesn’t believe that part? Give me a fucking break.
I think the fact that you believers don’t agree says a lot about your supposed holy book. If it was the word of god then he’s a terrible author if there’s this many contradicting interpretations.
This Andy is so weak…..I feel sorry for him
It just hurts to listen to Andy speak. Completely clueless.
AMEN!
What a slimy little evil theist
The truth hurts.
I'm thinking why this man isn't in a mental institution
You are absolutely correct. It other words, it is psychotic to believe in a deity or god. If one believes in a invisible being, it's delusional which is psychotic! (I stole this idea from Sam Harris lol).
"The science that we know", as McIntosh like to blurt out, only shows how complex certain things are. It doesn't in any way prove that there is a god responsible for it. There is no scientific evidence FOR god, and pointing out the complexity of molecules, biological organisms and other aspects of reality, is and will always be a god-of-the-gaps-argument.
John Anonymous - I was often yelling at my bluetooth speaker, " argument from ignorance!"
It is not possible to prove God using science unless we are proving a created god. God is higher than us human. Science is good to discover the magnificent creation from God. Science gives evidence of God existence through examine the properties and law that govern His creation. If biological organisms are formed through what Darwin's theory say by random selection, then a cell should act this way now and another way later depend on the condition rather then in a consistent way. History and some early culture and civilization also show evidence especially in the Chinese characters which tell the story of Genesis.
"It is not possible to prove God using science unless we are proving a created god."
Science is all we have. Science is the method by which we examine reality in all possible aspects. There is nothing else. If we would stumble upon a better or more refined method to gain knowledge, it would automatically become part of science.
So science can't examine or prove god(s)? Fine, than nothing can and there isn't any reason to believe in a god.
John Anonymous
_it would automatically become part of science._
Exactly...science is a culmination of human knowledge...which is exactly why we cannot find God with science...lol
_So science can't examine or prove god(s)?_
Sure it can...but then it would automatically become part of science so you will never be able to find God with science because God IS science. You are looking at the forest and cannot see it for the trees.
_Fine, than nothing can and there isn't any reason to believe in a god._
One of the most important reasons for believing in God is to keep us humble and always searching for God in the gaps of human wisdom. When humans become proud and boastful the next step required to keep them there is to demonstrate power over others and that is where they always fail because the demonstrations result in deaths or human suffering.
When we remain humble and seek God with that humility we do not become boastful and our pride doesn't lead us to killing those we think we have power over.
There...I just gave you 7.x billion reasons to believe in God.
"...science is a culmination of human knowledge...which is exactly why we cannot find God with science..."
I'd figure that if god exists and can be known, god will be part of 'human knowledge', by definition.
"So science can't examine or prove god(s)?
Sure it can...but then it would automatically become part of science so you will never be able to find God with science because God IS science."
Get your concepts and definitions straight. You are using mixing up two different meanings of science here. First the method and second the culminated body of knowledge. These are not the same and not interchangeable.
"You are looking at the forest and cannot see it for the trees."
You should put that one on a tile.
And the rest of what you're saying is just totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Complexity is not the hallmark of design, simplicity is.
If you think intelligent design is a feasible explanation for the diversity of life on earth you simply haven’t looked at the evidence or your theology has prevented you from thinking critically.
Well, nice try at logic but that would mean the space shuttle is simple...buildings are simple...vehicles are simple...
Have you ever built a space shuttle, building, or vehicle? Just working on a new vehicle requires years of training...working successfully requires constant upgrading.
How is that simple?
@@peli_candude554
Nice try at thinking, but you really should try thinking waaay harder.
The complete statement is: [given the function], simplicity is the hallmark of design.
May the force of IQ>80 be with you. Hopefully.
@@Conserpov
Nice try at oneupmanship but I was responding to the statement above.
Thank you for offering your services but I have enough IQ for both of us.
I''m sure you will find something useful for your low IQ brain. Wal-Mart is always looking for doorstops.
@@peli_candude554
_> I was responding to the statement above_
Sure you did, kiddo. Now run along, back into your barn.
@@Conserpov
I'm sure that even with your limited IQ even you can see how one post is responded to. If the full statement had been posted as you say it should have been then I may have responded differently.
But, then again...maybe not!
Andy McIntosh- Codes, irreducible complexity, BibleBible, design, BibleBible, blablabla, therefore god exists.
Total garbage
Properly read, the Bible is the greatest source for atheism. How true. Most atheists have read & understand the Bible much better than most theists.
One thing I always love to do when arguing for Christians is to put up a fake argument for Hinduism. Lord Brahma is the creator god of Hinduism and its always funny to hear their response when I ask why its implausible for Brahma to be behind the insane complexity of the universe instead of the Christian god.
The sophistication and complexity of the building blocks of life could be an argument against an intelligent all powerful designer....one would think an all powerful creator would simply create life with less complicated process... heck, even the Christian bible would disagree with process. If my memory serves me correctly, apparently the creator created life (particularly mankind) simply breathing into dirt...
@ Tony Vega... right, and I love when creationists keep repeating the false claim that science says we came from a rock... they need to actually read that bible they love to thump
dirt is actually quite complex. take a shovel, go out into the backyard, poke it into the ground and turn over as much as the shovel will allow. contained therein are more micro-organisms than human beings that have ever walked the earth. complexity or simplicity demonstrate nothing divine or otherwise. the heavy lift is still to be done.
McIntosh is an appalling, lying, deluded, gaslighting, shameless apologist…but brilliant at showing that believing in a god is pathetic
You have the logic of a brick
Not really the more complex something is the more obvious it is that there is a mind behind it.
9:40 - To skip all the intros.
1:53:00 Dan; "If god asks, will you kill me?"
Andy; ... I'll talk until you drop dead...
Dan looked like he could've died right there from dudes dumbass answer.
Keep talking, Dan.
@@swa_peeters
And the idea your trying to convey is ? ?
I'm always surprised that lightweights like McIntosh, Craig, and especially Desouza have the confidence to occupy a stage to argue against atheists, even relatively average atheists. They always revert to the same accusations, ad hominem attacks, claims that their opponent just "doesn't understand", etc., and in the case of this McIntosh character launching into a Sunday-school level sermon. They all end up pathetic losers, clearly demonstrating only their lack of credible arguments. It's like Christianity is caught in a bear trap, and slowly and painfully bleeding to death.
"Can you explain how the very first atom came?"
Why can´t people understand that both answers are equal.
"I don´t know"
"It was God"
And how do we know they are exactly the same? By asking how. Let's see:
"Can you explain how the very first atom came?" - I don´t know. - But do you know how it was made?"- No, I don´t.
"Can you explain how the very first atom came?". It was God. - But do you know how he made it?" - No. I don´t.
The logic is: saying that you know WHO made it is the same as knowing NOTHING made it, since you can´t take anything out of it.
This should be logic to everyone. And unfortunately it isn´t.
Not really. 'I don't know' says I don't have information, and does not communicate a position.
'It was God' says I know what it was, and I take the position that it was specifically a consciousness I call God.
They're technically not equal.
IDK= honest
God did it= not honest
Not very good reasoning on your part. How do we know atoms are the same, do you know what a periodic table is. It’s called science.
The science DOES NOT support creationism or supernatural beings. What the hell is Andy talking about???
Science doesn't have answers to everything and on the other hand, religion claims to know all the answers and is prideful in it which makes it even more disturbing. What's more honest? To say I don't know where life came from or making up some character, Mr. Magic Man, created it.
The real world has no connection with god except for those who want to believe god
As for the comfort of prayer, how comforting is it to believe your loved one, who never asked Jesus into his heart, is forever suffering in eternal torment?
tl;dr:
Andy McIntosh: "but the science says me"
Dan Barker: * starts explaining the actual science *
Andy McIntosh: "but you don't know that"
What strikes me the most in Christians, or believers in general, is that huge leap from position, "some diety must have had created all this atoms" to "it was Jesus Christ with his father and Mary the virgin". It's bigger jump than any of the missing links of Darwin's theory.
An atheist doesn't assert life can come from non-life. That right there is associating two completely different things and is a fallacy. There are no requirements for an atheist to accept science. There are no requirements for humans to understand where life came from. If we don't know, then we don't know. It's dishonest to plug a god in there and pretend like you know where life came from.
Yes you kind of have to assert that life came from non life, it’s your only option really.
@@ceceroxy2227 no it isn't. That's an argument from ignorance.
Andy McIntosh is so very frustrating to listen too. As for the question about the creation of the first atom, Dan could have asked who created the creator.
So really, when it gets down to it, we have offended a Hebrew deity (largely by some sort of monkeying about with alcohol or sex) and as a result we are in need of a supernatural rescue, all of which shows up in the equations one might study in a graduate program in thermodynamics at any well regarded university. Now, I can go make a sandwich and enjoy the remainder of my evening.
dan barker is disappointingly weak in the Q&A segment. for example, when asked:
- how did the universe come in2 existence?? or:
- how did the 1st atom come in2 existence??
he should have answered by the ultimate question:
how did god come in2 existence??,
which he didn't. dan, you should always insist on this question.
@@soriya011
But you already answered it...he didn't...God is, was, and always will be...God.
The Bible says so...
Atheists claiming you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible are using the Bible to disprove the Bible...which is also not allowed.
Prove that life came into being without God or that it is not designed. So far all I've heard is speculation based on...opinion and special pleading that there is no God in the gaps because humans have all the answers or expect to some time...some time ....
Some time...
You do realize that the world, thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics and everything else was there before humans were, right? We didn't make any of it, we can only study it and most of it we are so out of understanding that we still don't know most of it.
We can go and make a sandwich is about it. So when the creator of the universe tries to tell us something we screw it up and do the opposite of the recommended course of action. It takes a very patient and powerful God to not simply wipe us our and try again...maybe what happened to the Dinosaurs too...
Hope you enjoyed your sandwich, Jum. As the late great Warren Zevon said: "Enjoy every sandwich."
It's not even because of sex or alcohol... only because Adam supposedly ate a fucking apple smh
Typical. To say scientists or atheists aren't taking this issue seriously is offensively dismissive and typical of the judginess these people often demonstrate.
Don’t fuck with Dan Barker just ask Sonny Hernandez who got tooled by Dan
Early on, McIntosh openly admits that he's not going to take any arguments against himself seriously; but he will treat them "tongue in cheek". For example around 10:30. Foolish and misguided man. 'Belief' can be a terrible thing.
Yelling believe in my magic doesn't do much!
Because he is a scientists he "believes" ??? But... does he not want to know?
Respect the PROCESS. Do not disturb the PROCESS. These debaters understand the PROCESS. Do not disrespect the PROCESS. Yawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
2:27:19
“No Christian should ever act like that”
But that person OBVIOUSLY BELIEVES they are CHRISTIAN
@joeturner9219
“The thing is, no one can "prove God" just like no one can "disprove" God. God is FAR above our finite brains and His Ways are higher than ours”
There’s no way you can justify or back up this statement. Anyone who speaks on the behalf of a supposed supreme being is supremely arrogant
Things that are designed are made with simplicity to keep from using up a lot of energy, (Well a smart designer would make it with that in mind) not with complexity which would make whatever it is being disgned more problematic
Something is either true or it isn't. I am astonished that there are still so many supposedly rational adults that buy into these pernicious fairy tales. Time for humanity to grow up.
Christian apologists are pretentious, lying assholes. They pretend to be superior because they defends the rights of a fetus. But when it comes to the millions of children raped by Christian clergymen, they have nothing to say except, "don't go to the police."
The really crowning point of his failure (McIntosh's) was (2:16:47) when he complains that nobody has ever seen a star form, which by extension goes on into "nobody observed the Big Bang." So he his saying that Science is just wrong because unless you observe it, you can't claim it happened.
Which is hilarious, because he doesn't demand the same burden of proof for God's Creation of the Universe. Was McIntosh actually present to observe God creating the Universe in seven days? Was he present when Jesus was crucified? Was he present when Jesus rose from the dead? (Which incidentally puts the lie to Jesus's sacrifice by God, since God can't sacrifice anything if he can just bring it back 3 days later.) But the Observer argument works both ways.
Fortunately (not so much for Religion), we have lots of people who have been trained to be able to deduce how things work from observation. Religion can only make claims based on 2,000 year old writings by unknown authors. Maybe if the Bible got updates every few years or decades, we might have a better chain of evidence for the things written in it.
What really got under my skin the whole time (i listened to the whole thing) is McIntosh constantly used a god of the gaps fallacy. He CONSTANTLY used it. He never had an evidence based argument, and anytime Dan called him out on it, he said "no it isn't" and then used yet another fallacy. One thing he kept harping on was that the beginning of life or the beginning of the universe is a pivotal point. No it ISN'T! You don't know how it happened and neither do we, but because we don't know he wants to yet again use a God of the gaps argument. "Ha! You don't know where all this stuff came from, therefore God!" It doesn't matter if we can't explain it, it does not prove God exists simply because we can't answer a question.
I cannot count the number of times he pulled that shit throughout this debate.
Ronald Stepp
Have you been following the information on Quantum Physics, Quantum Biology, and Consciousness? They are exposing our ignorance on how the world works and most are claiming that we will never truly understand our world with our current way of thinking and our limited powers of observation.
What they are really saying is as much an admission of really not knowing as religion says. According to the Bible God told us we will never understand how He did anything...and now the scientists are realizing that the complexities are nothing short of baffling.
So where does that actually leave us?
I am no genius myself but I do understand the concepts better after indulging in dozens of hours of listening to what they say. One thing that stands out in my mind is that we have the power to create our realities to suit our biology and to make ourselves happy.
We create our own reality.
What that tells me is that if I believe in God and that makes me happy and doesn't actually hurt anyone else directly (unless they choose to be hurt by what I believe) then there is nothing actually wrong with that way of thinking.
If my way of thinking makes me a calmer and happier person and I am respecting the beliefs of others that are not trying to do anyone harm or upsetting the delicate balance we have in society then I can only see that as being in harmony with the world around me.
So who then is really trying to upset the delicate balance and who is causing all the problems we have in the world today? I can only see it as those who are struggling to be the alpha humans that want to have everyone do as they think we should be doing.
Those include atheists that insist we have to get rid of religion to make the world a better place.
Christians want to get rid of things that kill others and enslave them. Things like abortion and human trafficking are good places to start and if we don't agree on that it might be a good "morality check" for anyone who disagrees.
I'd like to see better population control but not at the expense of killing 50 million babies every year.
@@peli_candude554
Your logic is a bit flawed here Peli. You make some statements and flow from one point to another that aren't connected at all. You start with quantum etc etc and end at abortion = killing babies, which isn't true. Let's go over a few things.
Religion that's about elevating yourself, and being a good person, charitable, loving, and accepting people for who they are, has never been a problem for anyone but other religious people. Muslims for example throughout history, haven't accepted people that hold to a different religion, and it's even worse for me an atheist. I'm still the least electable and least trusted group in the United States that there is. That's a fact. How many open and out atheists can you name that hold public office? There are quite a few of every other group though, except perhaps for trans people, but they're about .06% of the population, compared to an estimated 5-8% of atheists. All around the world different religious groups are killing each other right now. Hindus are even doing it, and nothing in their texts can even justify it, unlike other religions. Yes, Judaism and Christianity have had Reformations but the texts still say what they've always said.
In spite of what you think about quantum mechanics, quantum theory, and the like, we are not able to create our own realities. That's a huge misunderstanding of what's been learned. It's a misinterpretation of the 'observer effect' from the Double Slit Experiment, and subsequent analogies etc that attempt to explain it. It concerns interactions, and how any interaction will determine what state the particle will "be in" once it's observed, and the probability of knowing it's properties before observation. Knowing one quality will make another quality extremely uncertain. Keep in mind this is my understanding from being a self taught individual. I do my best to not say anything that's way out of bounds though.
How you end up at "abortion = killing babies" I honestly have no idea. That human life begins at conception I don't dispute. Conception is a stage in human development, yes. It's a zygote. So is an oocyte, a blastocyst, a fetus, then a baby, a toddler, a child, a teenager, adult, and old man. A zygote however is NOT a human being. At what stage of human development are you suggesting we usurp a woman's rights to her own body?
Ken Walter
Thank you for the reply. Seems I almost forgot I even posted that.
_You make some statements and flow from one point to another that aren't connected at all._
It may sound unconnected but the point was that as much as science and human wisdom has progressed, we still have no idea about most things to do with the human mind and spirituality.
What I was responding to was the idea that as Ronald Stepp is making assumptions about how things are which are quite premature and possibly very inaccurate because we seem to be at a bit of an impasse as we delve deeper into QM research.
I too am self taught and don’t claim to know anything specifically but by using the technique of consilience (meaning drawing ideas from several different unrelated areas) I started to form a picture of how we patch together our world and create our own version of reality.
You can see that in other areas like religion where we have, literally, thousands of gods that all do things slightly different. My understanding of how that has come about is simply that we have a different God for every human because we all see something slightly different.
7.X billion gods. A perfect God/human Deo~biotic relationship.
I’m still working through the fine points and trying to incorporate what we do know of how the brain works and by no means a completed work that anyone might pay attention to. Besides...we have millions of great minds working round the clock on these very things.
_You start with quantum etc and end at abortion = killing babies, which isn't true._
You seem to somehow agree with that stance but with objections.
_ Let's go over a few things. Religion that's about elevating yourself, and being a good person, charitable, loving, and accepting people for who they are, has never been a problem for anyone but other religious people._
There have always been atheists. That is why there was a “cleansing’ that many atheists consider the immorality of God in the Bible. The Flood represents such an act.
Which I find somewhat funny and ironic that atheists would call God the immoral one because they are acting immorally yet they strive to eliminate religion in some countries with this exact strategy. Kill them all....end of conflict.
_Muslims for example throughout history, haven't accepted people that hold to a different religion, and it's even worse for me an atheist. I'm still the least electable and least trusted group in the United States that there is. That's a fact._
Yes, I’m aware of that fact. But God knows there are those who have been elected that acted less morally than any atheist would act.
_How many open and out atheists can you name that hold public office_
None. According to Christopher Hitchens we are all atheists…with just one less god to not believe in.
_There are quite a few of every other group though, except perhaps for trans people, but they're about .06% of the population, compared to an estimated 5-8% of atheists._
And now Trump wants to eradicate the trans term from society. Seems he goes from one conflict to another with hardly a care...
_All around the world different religious groups are killing each other right now._
Yes, religious conflicts are common. Not to mention the rumours that many are stirred up by atheists, but that’s another “story”.
_Hindus are even doing it, and nothing in their texts can even justify it, unlike other religions. Yes, Judaism and Christianity have had Reformations but the texts still say what they've always said._
And atheists are banding together to fight against religions so being religious doesn’t predispose us to engaging in conflicts. Being human predisposes us to siding with those we feel comfortable with and feeling comfortable includes being around those that share the same viewpoints.
Atheists are just as “religious” in that sense as anyone else. Worse in the sense that most of them are followers of science and want to use science as the tool of destruction but all science really does is lets us understand the classic world that “God created”. We are not "creators" but rather we are 'destroyers" that like to pretend we are creating.
_In spite of what you think about quantum mechanics, quantum theory, and the like, we are not able to create our own realities._
True…we cannot “create” anything beyond our perceptions. But we most certainly can perceive things so different from others that we will go to war to defend our beliefs even if those beliefs are not vested in a God.
_How you end up at "abortion = killing babies" I honestly have no idea._
Quite simply…that is what it is.
_That human life begins at conception I don't dispute._
But that is what you proceed to do in the next statement by breaking down the phases of what constitutes a baby.
The concept of God giving all life and humans not having a say in when or even how it should end is a hinge point of many discussions that have gone on for a long time.
_At what stage of human development are you suggesting we usurp a woman's rights to her own body?_
The religious believe that all life has value and the non religious believe that well being is the most important concept of being human. When a human engages in sex and the result is another human life is conceived then who is the woman to make a choice that threatens the well being of a child growing inside of her?
@@peli_candude554
About that. I've just recently begun to get back into YT threads and forget to check how old comments are sometimes. I'm out of practice hehe.
That said, I'm going to go with a single topic at a time. It makes for a better exchange imo.
I make distinctions about stages of human development because that's what pregnancy physiology is based upon. The level of care changes dramatically. What the doctor expects to hear, see (in sonograms) chemical levels in the woman's blood/urine, where the zygote attaches, etc etc. It all matters. A human sperm is human obviously, but it's not a human being. Babies and children are born. Fetuses and zygotes are not, yet. I am well versed in what weeks the brain develops to point that we can call the fetus viable enough to grant it personhood, which is what this argument truly hinges on. I'm also aware of the pseudo-science trotted out in places like Texas especially.
Happy to hear your thoughts.
out of all apologists these head changers are the worst.he has a degree in thermodynamics and yet he tosses out terms like random energy.what is that.
A cartoonist creates a character.
That cartoonist knows all about his created character
The character that was created will never understand the cartoonist
The character has no objective existence, but is just the cartoonist.
That was Dan Barker vs a religious preacher 😂😂😂😂😂
When he said that Dan Barker's Atheism is his religion I didn't bother listening any longer. Whom does this cretin think he's talking to?
Mr. McIntosh should be on CBN, not debating with rational beings. "To debate with someone who has renounced their use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
Love when they harp on the real deep questions of DNA and entropy and then somehow think that proves the Christian God. Like what?
Dan.....you missed a design argument defeater = Is a cancer cell designed? (queue we live in a fallen world)
don't forget "the good people are going to heaven for all eternity, so what's so bad about a few years/months/weeks of dying of cancer?" or something like that.
@@tankbuggeru Remember: suffering makes you stronger!!! Offer up your suffering to our Heavenly Father who sent His Only Son to earth to suffer and die to forgive our sins!!!
classic 'argument from ignorance' as described by plato at 1:04:13. that's plenty ignorance displayed for me.
he’s got the tone of a preacher that scars children for life.
Poor old Andy. He became very personal and angry. These religious conversations relate entirely to a religion. God is irrelevant.
So God is “not part of the creation” yet he looks like us!?!?
The Religious contort themselves into pretzels thinking they’re making good sense🤦♂️.
Almighty God needs defenders because he makes himself invisible and beyond human comprehension.
A good topic for debate.
"he makes himself invisible and beyond human comprehension"
Sorry to say, but this is a cop-out. Theists claim to know all about god, his nature, what he wants, what pisses him off, etc., that's until you point out inconsistencies, incompetence, logical fallacies and his horrific deeds. Then, all of a sudden, god is "outside of space" and "time and mysterious. "
Plus, god making himself invisible and beyond comprehension works against his stated goals.
Guitar dog you need to read the book flatland. By definition the cause for existence can’t be a part of existence it’s not a cop it’s a definition. The creator of time can’t be inside time, the creator of material can’t be material. Call it whatever you want prime mover, god, first cause that’s the definition
@@boogiman14
For a thing or agent to be both inside and outside of time is a useless paradox itself.
Making this nonsensical and bereft of meaning, a deepity in other words.
Religion appears to be the only area in which using a bunch of unsupported assertions to support another batch of unsupported assertions is deemed to be a valid tactic.
Another point is if God defies logic, then how do you know he exists? Faith is the answer, right? Well faith is nothing but gullibility and wishful thinking. Sorry! All of your arguments fail. Now prove god using other methods instead of regurgitating the same old arguments.
MacIntosh is an example how delusional believes and ideas can control your mind. That such an intelligent man deceives himself (and others) with creationism is an insult to intelligence. But then, religion has little to do with how intelligent a believer may be; persistent religious believes perhaps tell more about the power of neuronal networks - once set up in early childhood- in maintaining themselves.
I pity him.
btw: how can a single cell be more complicated than the whole world- which is made up of billions of creatures consisting of trillions of cells?
I am sure he needs your pity, he has accomplished more in his life than you ever will. Now go back to your anime cartoons with the other atheists
@@ceceroxy2227 lol
Why is Dan Barker not the president of the world?
Because most apes believe in fairy tales
Never has there been a this dastardly attack on God by someone in the history of mankind ….. and all of it solid truth! …..
Great job Dan.
How do you enter a debate where you are asked to make your claims and you spend your entire time attempting to disprove the other side before he has even spoken? Disproving the other side doesn't automatically make your side the correct one. You must prove your point first. Then rebuttal. Quoting Scripture to prove God is meaningless. It requires that you first already believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible's divinity. Dan stayed on point. This other guy thought he was teaching Sunday School. Preaching to the choir might give you warm fuzzies, but it will never get you any converts. I didn't hear one coherent argument proving God's existence. Not one. In 40 minutes. That alone is impressive. It's clear he assumes so many things. Uses random quotes, random verses and 'I'm right you're wrong' statements as if that were evidence of some kind. Doesn't stay on point. Case study in how not to debate a topic. I'm sure he's a great man, but despite his expertise, he showed his complete lack of understanding of the natural world and discussions of anything outside of his own belief system.
McIntosh speaks mind-grinding, embarrassing, patronizing gibberish. Also, who told that woman that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" she would see her dead son Philip again? Mindblowing.
Don't necessarily agree when Dan says our short lives are better more
meaningful (because they are short)
but IF heaven and a limetless powerful God were true.
presumably he could make ''an eternity of bliss''.pretty easily.
Not that I believe any of it,
frank whelan - if we stick to reality, it's economics- scarcity increases value.
But if (as the religious claim)the supernatural realm and an omnipotent god existed, earthly values wouldn't have to apply,but Dan seems to say in any circumstances a short life is better even if their claim was true.
@@frankwhelan1715
I see your point Frank and it's a valid one. It's not how short it is that makes the difference, it's that it's all we have imho that makes it more valuable. There are people that joyfully look forward, and work towards "end days" scenarios based on some scary ideological ideas.
No god does not exist! C'mon folks, it's the 21st Century for the love.
Pay attention from1:04:50 up till 1:07:37 and hear who is crying in the background and see what the topic is about in that moment... then pause at 1:07:54 and see if you catch how GOD works in subtleties.
"GOD looks down from heaven on the entire human race; HE looks to see if anyone is truly wise, if anyone seeks GOD."
Psalm 53:2
atoms can't think. atoms do not have a plan
Dan addresses the real life pain and disappointment experienced when the god we believed in and called out to in despair failed to appear when most needed. Our children still die, natural disasters still occur, mass shootings still happen No lofty, high minded opinion of god McIntosh proposes can heal our broken hearts or alleviate our overwhelming grief. McIntosh’s god is a failure just like every other near east god was before or since man invented YHWH. I buried my daughter and though I would love to think I will see her again some day, I know that is impossible and will not happen. I don’t believe trying to believe otherwise would bring me any comfort whatsoever. Dr. McIntosh epeatedly saying “Thelordjesuschrist” (all one word) cracks me up.
"Dan is refusing the science". Actually Dan mentioned that he has nobelist on his side who understands ATP mechanism far better than both of them.
When Andy mentioned about his died child it was very emotional. I agree, when you lost someone close, you really want to believe it's not the end, but what strikes me in believers is their indifference for suffering and pointless existence of other spices.
Sa sampung sinabi ni Mcintosch, labing isa ang mali! Hahaha not even close, you better preach your perspective because it’s not relevant for a debate. Or you can talk to your grand children, they might believe