Atheist Debates - Debate review: Does God Exist? with Jay Lucas Part 3 

When I first discovered the blatantly lie (I start discussing it around 49:12) ...I was absolutely livid. I managed to calm down and be a bit more measured in the analysis than I was when I first found it. And, to be fair, I was actually almost as upset with myself for not catching it earlier than I was at Jay for the deception.

Slavery as social safety net. What a great idea. That was sarcasm BTW.

This was really inspiring and instructive. I respect and appreciate Matt's ability to make comprehensive atheistic reasoning easy enough for any open minded person to understand. All the times of sitting silent while the theists of my family talked over me is over...Matt really hands over the ammunition to fight back; mental weapons of reason and scripture, without emotion too. Just so powerful. Thank you for being a voice of reason for somebody like me. I am really learning how to take on the blind believers around me with reasonable truth and compassion.

How dare you attack my invisible sky god. Thor will strike you down.

These debate reviews are a really cool idea. I am glad you are doing them. BTW the blatant lie by Jay was infuriating! I remember noticing his reading seemed a little off when I watched the whole debate a while back.

Socrates, thy name is Matt... Thank you for your work, sir. I think we are all on to something good, and your initiative in this has something to do with it. Thank you again.

Did anyone else feel a slight chill when Jay said that slavery is a form of "social safety net"? Is this a feature of the wedding of Church and State that some Christians advocate; a social safety net that is slavery in all but name?

Matt, I assume you read comments on a good day, I just wanted to mention that these are the types of videos you shine in and the ones I appriciate most.

If Christians /god believers had the truth on their side ... they wouldn't have to trick you into saying something that favors them. If you have or know the truth , just say it it should all fit / make sense

This is a superb video. You managed to get past the lie and avoid personal attacks. You're great at this and its a big reason you're my hero.

"The old testament doesn't advocate slavery, it regulates slavery." So, this happened.

The fact that the bible would have a husband and wife broken up rather than taking away property rights to the wife(as a slave) would seem to imply that the right to hold slaves is more important than marriage to the god of the bible.

that painting in the background is so cool

When God's not condoning slavery, he's condoning, and commanding, the stoning to death of a man for picking up sticks on the wrong day. Numbers 15:32-36: "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses." It's clear from that passage that not only did the 'victim' not know of the consequences of picking up sticks on the wrong day, but also the rest of the people of Israel didn't know, either. It wasn't until God spoke to Moses that the consequences of the victims actions were known. Is that a just and merciful God? But in my opinion, two things are more likely with regard to the truth of that passage. Either Moses was intentionally throwing his weight around, and swift justice, in order to keep an unruly mob under control, or that event never actually happened at all.

Next time bring an "Athesist persuasion Pack" 1 Bottle of Water (to part, walk onto or to turn into wine) 2 some Sand (Talking it into trouing itself into the water), 3 Bottle of Arsenic (to drink without getting harmed)

If rights are granted, then they aren't rights at all, because what is granted can be taken away, and that which can be taken away isn't a right at all. I recognize that there can be difficulties saying "I have a right to X", so I prefer to say, "No one has a right to deprive me of X".

Seems to me the way to win a debate is to choose the side that you don't have to lie and make shit up to defend your position.

All these years of listening to your appearances on The Atheist Experience and I finally land on a video of yours! You bring to the table good and sound reasoning and proper debate, and I have learned (and still am learning) an awful lot from your debates. It makes for civil discourse, mostly. Thanks for being a good human being :]

I feel like Matt should be debating constantly, be it through Skype or on podcasts, or by phone call or email. They could be informal like the one with Matt slick on skype. The fact that he isn't points to a shortage of opponents out there. That or Matt has his own reasons for not wanting to do it more. But the fact is I would be a middle tier Patreon supporter if there was more debating

I don't know how often you read these comments, I understand you probably get more comments/emails than anyone should rationally expect you to keep up with. I just want to thank you for your work and these videos. Your analysis and arguments are one of my favorite ways to unwind between chemistry exams.

If someone want to claim that their religion provides an objective source of morality because their sacred texts ( eg., bible) are objective, well fine. That means any recorded media with moral dictates is an equally objective source of morality - such as "The Brady Bunch" complete DVD set. But if they claim that they have an objective source of morality because it comes from God, then that is the ultimate in SUBJECTIVE claims. And in my opinion, the Brady Bunch complete DVD set is a MUCH better source of morality. Mike and Carol never told Marsha that they would kill her if she had premarital sex.

Matt you ae a legend. You are great to watch and I love your style. Your're very clear in your answers and your superior knowledge of the bible helps you to show up these apologetic puppets. I have learnt more about the bible (I am atheist) from you than any theist. I am so glad I discovered the Atheist Experience and from that the other debates you do. Another huge fan fro the UK

Ah, the "Dillahunty Dodge." Slick and his click like to say this to anyone that takes more than thirty second to answer one of their questions. Whenever I hear a theist state that term, I know they are not worth my time.

Thank "God" for you, Mister Matt.

I enjoy the debate analyses.

If other Religions Predate the christian religion by thousands of years or earlier religion years, using whatever method they want. how is it honest for them to say that their god gave them or all of us morals, shouldn't they have to Prove that all other religions are complete non sense first before they can even assert that its their god?? i also never understood why they alwaysss say it.

Great analysis! So love a strong closing.

It is certainly not in the interest of this god character for Jay to crow about this "fallen world", where puny humans so easily corrupted its SUPPOSEDLY "perfect design". The existence of apologetics disproves any god character that supposedly knows everything, as it would NEVER choose these lying scumbags as ITS advocates. To hear Jay dishonestly scold ANYONE for having irrational presuppositions broke my irony meter, and is certainly IMAX level projection.

Why is there ANY immorality if this god character ACTUALLY "wrote morality on our hearts"? The answer cannot be "free will" if this behavior was ACTUALLY imprinted on us in some fashion and the whole argument is directly in opposition to their other positions on their god character "giving us free will" (which ALSO breaks free will).

22:21 that moment when everyone laughed at Lukas for his absurdly bad takes on slavery was classic.

Who cares about Matt "not so" Slick's comments. We all know the only argument he has is about something that happened 14 billion years ago. Learning about today's dilemmas on morality is much more interesting though. An, on that day there shall never be slavery again. Wow talk about speaking for God... And that's the problem. Thanks for pointing it out. I was going to say a debate of the historicity might be interesting, until. I hope Jay Lucas does watch this.

Conscience is often mentioned in the N.T., especially the Pauline letters, but wasn't mentioned, as such, in the O.T. and wasn't thought of the same way. For example, the knowledge of good and evil was not revealed until, or then was made certain or made beyond further excuse, to Adam and Eve after they ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. So, they knew better to do wrong our any more wrong, and from O.T. scriptures, their children knew better. I point all this out because it appears Mr. Lucas is arguing "no objective morality means no morality," and obviously, despite the codification in the commandments, people were seldom shown mercy when they did wrong they knew was wrong - because they knew better. If they knew better, the only excuse to prefer Moses code over Hammurabi's code would be preferring a better morality from a better source. Religionists believe this and ignore the changes and improvements over the past thousands of years and thus avoid responsibility for a deity with poor morals and poor laws.

18:27 this request by Lukas is so laughable, because he tossed that ball perfectly over home plate, slow and easy, allowing Matt to crush it out of the park.

50:00 I would guess that Jay's ego was hurt (because of Matt's debating expertise, because the audience laughed at him and booed him, because he realized he was wrong about slavery, etc.). That's possibly why he was so dishonest adding that lie about slavery to the Bible passage he was reading.

Matt, I love you... what will it take for you to do an updated vegan video? Have you learned any new information on why people are adopting the lifestyle? Do you think it might be evolutionarily and progressively necessary? I found Richard Dawkins perspective on veganism very interesting.

Isn't Jay lying about what God says and not getting struck down the ultimate proof that God doesn't exist, or if he exists, he doesn't care what people say about him, rendering apologists completely unnecessary?

matty, you are right on most things, except rights ...need to know what qualities in man are intrinsic, if any ? please be specific....

This debate is just another fail. You can instantly tell by the phrasing of the title "does god exist". This makes the debate one sided and bias when it should be phrased something closer to "what is more reasonable god or blank" because no one can know if either position is true. --both position also have a burden of proof the atheist just tends to make a fallacious argument to avoid the burden. The argument tends to be "I am not trying to prove how, when, where, or why the universe was created", but they still make positive claims. --or they make an argument like "claiming a god exists needs more proof". i should not have to explain how that statement is illogical. --lets just put it this way, you have x amount of steps to create the universe and y more steps during the creation of the universe. X is unknown because it goes outside this universe or you just have problems with time, but is still unknown. This means x could be a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion steps. how ever Y can have a number, but is still unknown (lets just say 50). That first step tends to be based on a worldview and requires a burden of proof. --if each step needs to have the same standard of burden of proof then why does it change with god? --The claims about god tend to be the last step in "X" and the claims in atheism tend to be the first in "Y" depending on your beliefs. At what point did atheist stop needing to prove their claims. --on top of this just because you stop at the first step in "y" it does not mean all the steps in "x" does not exist. In fact the atheist world view will most likely have more "steps" because god can do everything which makes everything shorter. --just because you lack a theory does not mean you lack the burden to prove your worldview is reasonable and how can you do that without "x".

Hi Matt, I think one topic that could use another video of its own is the distinction about believing in something you don't understand. You touch on it and the difference between string theory and God briefly at around 33:45, but I think it needs expanding. Thanks for the videos, please keep making them :)

On the question of objective morality, I would like to see the following argument. "Having heard this argument before, I am forced to conclude that by 'objective morals', you mean 'morals that can only come from god'. (which would, of course, make the argument circular, but no matter). So let's consider the second premise. Do we HAVE morals that can only come from god? How can we differentiate between morals that can only come from god, and any other moral. How about the moral of not having sex with children. Does that moral come from god?" All sorts of interesting conversations happen from there, I think.

I'm not 100% sure that this was a deliberate deceit, given the amount of paraphrasing of the section itself and the fact that is at the end of his "quote", the clumsy pause where he looks through his papers, almost as if he is expecting a reaction from someone, perhaps the audience who has boo-ed before on the subject of slavery. He's also not talking over it to prevent people from picking up on it. It is certainly not the correct way to read quotes, you must always indicate where the quoting starts and stops, and it is damn handy if the audience would get the impression that it's in the bible, but on the other hand he has said before that god will eradicate slavery on some remarkable day and this quote basically details that day so it does fit in as an explanation. Keep up the good work Matt, I love these review videos!

Suppose, that sometime in the future, these debates end because we've come to a common understanding, then the fun will be over. Please don't stop debating. It's like tennis or football. Every year we have the same competitions and make the same awards and we love it. The debates must continue for ever, please.

Matt, worse than you're saying about Jay, he *goes back to looking at his Bible during the bit he adds!* During his reading, he looks up many times and for periods as long as or longer than he does during his personal addition. There is no objective way you can tell from his manner or his word choice that it's not meant to be part of his reading, seeing as he makes other changes to the passage along the way. If that isn't damning, what is?!

Wow - Real time oral scriptural interpolation - to me a really dirty trick, I think your too forgiving of Jay Lucas's deceit and kept it within the video sequence of the whole debate review but I think in this particular case it deserves to stand on its own.

I only caught the lie because I am aware that nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned or called immoral. Nowhere. We can at least conclude that Jay is more moral than his god - he can't help but infer that slavery is wrong.

Simply put, Matt made Jay Lucas look like a complete buffoon in this debate.

I think his 'might makes right' model makes perfect aense. I mean i've had five children killed and my wife's been raped 4 times by the man who built my house, because he allows me to live there and he built it so he has ownership and absolute power over it

I think his 'might makes right' model makes perfect aense. I mean i've had five children killed and my wife's been raped 4 times by the man who built my house, because he allows me to live there and he built it so he has ownership and absolute power over it

Matt i am a big fan of yours, and i would love for you to bring back a thing Hitchens use to do that i would think he would be proud if somebody used it, and i think you are the best person for the job. One of my favorite mortality things he use to say is think of a moral thing an atheist cant do, and then think of a immoral act that is only done by religous affiliates. I think that speaks volumes. I am a big fan of yours and i hope you see this.

Wow, the question at around 38:00 really shows the disparity of honesty between you two. You deserve better than this Matt.

I think you once said, and not sure if you bring it up here, but what does it even mean to say you have a instrinstic right to X if no one reconizes it, okay god has given you a right to life, or right to worship god, or any other right, if your in China, or another country that doesn't reconize these rights, what meaning is there to say they are instrinsic.

I have nothing but praise for Matt's presentation, but there's an uncorrected slip of the tongue on his part at about 47:50 into this video where he says "militia" when I think he probably means "millennia".

i dont know if slavery or anything *ought* not be done, but god says you *shall* not steal. he got that wrong. cant find even a hint of an argument for god here.

I love how you want a back and forth. Christopher Hitchens loved the Q&A by the audience and I think he'd say something similar yet different as you: each a short opening and then 2 hours of questions by the audience. I can only imagine the difficulty settling on the rules, let alone the topic.

Oh shit. There's a part three? I'm wicked excited.

I wonder if Jay is aware of how his bible curses him for dishonestly implying (adding words to scripture) as found in Rev. 22:18, [I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.] or Proverbs 30:6 [Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.]

+Matt Dillahunty ... On the "supernatural," would it not be better to just say that if something supernatural appears to exist, it will just be part of our natural world, but be part of our world we simply do not understand yet? Meaning... even if something we observe or can experience, is beyond the (scientific) boundaries we have set for this universe,... we would not call them supernatural, but we would widen our definitions of the natural world. The reason I think that would be a much fairer way to define "supernatural" and natural is because it may very well be there are things - within the scientific definitions we use - that are beyond this universe. Like multiverse theories, brain theory, etcetera.

I just came from a video with Matt replying to a comment with "I should delete your comment but I won't" I greatly respect Matt but my criticism of him is his pro comment-censorship stance. The current cultural view on RU-vid is that the comment sections are the equivalent of the public square, for the viewers more than the creators. The reason "but you have your own channel" is not a good excuse for censorship is because the you never get access to 100% of the audience you are trying to address in which to counter the arguments put forth in the original video. Now days the people that turn off comments or moderate them are viewed with suspicion and disliked, they are usually people pushing propaganda, slandering someone with lies or hiding facts from their audience. RU-vid skeptics follow this free speech attitude the most vehemently, well except for Matt and The Atheist Experience channel. This is so widespread that even corporate TV networks now leave their comment sections open and unfiltered with votes turned on. Look at the new Ghostbusters official trailer, even in a pool of down votes and negative (including sexist) comments, they leave it open, so even corporations rather have negative responses than be viewed as censoring the audience. On the other hand it is also agreed that the creator is never responsible for the comments in their video sections, much like the safe harbour laws. The comment section is not blamed on the channel owner. The attitude is, the best counter for bad speech is more good speech and when illegal speech or doxing occurs the community report it and it automatically gets removed.

Gosh - he's so dishonest

Why do you hate the sky god? :-P

"Slavery is a social safety net" rofl

Love the videos

deevorce

you need to tell thes debaters that no one in the crowd has studied(be in indoctrinated) like they have

Thanks!

Matt - you are absolutely brilliant, my friend. More than that, you are well-read, well-spoken, and pleasantly forthright. Before I engage in another debate with anyone regarding god or religion, I'm going to read the KJV bible - study it - grasp it - and do my very best to remember it. Thanks so much for your honesty and continuing efforts to enlighten fellow atheists, as well as moderate theists, and others. It is much appreciated.

Thank you Matt. Even though I started thinking my way free around 49 years ago when I was deeply indoctrinated young child of 10, I still like to hear the arguments especially when you are in the debate. I think you are honest, to the point, hardworking and have a true desire to help humanity. It is a pleasure to support you even so minimally as I do. I am constantly assaulted with religious privilege, undue demand for respect and silly customs in my travels around our little planet and it is good to know that you continue to attempt to rid humans of these barbaric middle eastern myths.

Matt! I have an acquaintance that swears up and down that he personally knows the one and only "Kent Hovind" and could facilitate a debate between the two of you. I would love to see you out the dishonest, strawman-ing "doctor." If my acquaintance turns out to be truthful, would you be interested??? Please please please please please lol

18:30 lol

Matt, thank you for making these videos because some of us new atheists need to learn a little more. I have subscribed and I look forward to more videos. Thanks again.

If something can come from nothing, then I see no reason why God cannot.

one argument I will use when it comes to divine command theory along the lines of your argument I heard you once use about rights is. Lets say god is perfect, and god does tell us what is the most moral things to do and they truly are, how do you convince someone that doesn't believe in your god? You can't use, god says murdering Christians is wrong or anything else and say that god doens't like it, because their god does say it's right.. The divine command theory is useless, when you both believe in diamstricly oppsed gods, so you will ultimatly have to use the humanist/atheist way of determing right and wrong when someone rejects your claims about god. So it's just as meaningless to say god has determined X mora, then to say god has given us all the intrinsic right of Y, if someone rejects your god then saying that has no meaning.

If you ever look at this, does anyone know which apologists are most convincing from a skeptical view and or a Christian break down of such debates? I usually see debates from the atheistic perspective and wanted a different viewpoint

These debate reviews are brilliant! Thank you, Matt.

they do have an inherent right to life. pull your common sense out of your egotistical intellectualism

20:00 I immediately thought of the story of job

make Jay lucas call the show!! I want more!

OMG, Matt, audio levels!

OOOOOH SNAP!!! Nice job Matt!

Brilliant as always. Mr Lucas should be evicted from Earth for such deception.

love the reviews please do more

Great stuff. Keep it up

Hey Matt, If you or anyone else could help me I would appreciate it so much. I am basically on the fence about theism and atheism and the fear of hell is absolutely killing me... Im at the stage where im going to book therapy but please please please help me. If its not true than yay..But if it is then like everyone i know will be going there.. Please someone reply Im actually scared shitless and im so saddened by this.

Can you elaborate on why my Ty name discredits my opinion? The BoR's are natural law based. I don't have to be or not be Christian to respect and defend them.

IMO, God or no God, we have natural rights that have to be defended. Large scale religion helps in this end. While I have recently converted to agnostic, I respect much of christianity's current values, which includes natural rights. As long as enough people are willing to fight for a cause, governments will not have a monopoly on rights.

God for sure exist or I would in no way have ever given up alcohol and ungodly music which were like God to me. All the debating goes out the window once you sincerely repent of sin and ask God to change your life. I have been on both sides of this. The born again experience makes a better person out of you and thats why there are those that risk their lives preaching the gospel all over the world. You will never convince someone that has been born again that God does not exist. Its like if you met someone and then they tried to convince you that you dont know the person. I had to make a choice to give up my old life which is a very big deal. If you are sincere there will be tears involved and you will not be ashamed to go and be baptized in a Church and tell what happened to you. After the change I was then free from alcohol and other ungodly things and able to get married and have a family. It is called born again because you become brothers and sisters with the family of God. I did not like those people at all when I was lost. All this happened when a guy asked me if I knew Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I could not answer him and started asking questions. Once He told me how to accept Christ, God started to deal with me about giving up my old life and I knew I would become a new person. This happened back in the 80s and I still remember walking out to my truck and seeing a decal of a falling angel on my back window. It was swansong record company and I had been blind to what was. I thought I had nothing to do with God or Satan but found I had been really involved and was on the wrong side heading down a road that would kill me at a early age like it did my Grandfather who never got born again. He died from alcohol, drugs and smoking just like I would have. I remember the Bible says there will be no sign given to this wicked generation. He requires people to come to him by faith that He is real like I did. I dont believe atheist exist. They do believe God is real and just dont want anything to do with Him. I have not found one that is willing to do what I did to allow God to prove He is real. So they stay in the state I was in hating preachers and the family of God trying to convince themselves that God is not real but knowing all the time that He is in there heart. I find no reason to debate anything about God. He said that the wisdom of man is not even up to His foolish level. God is smarter that man so He is my teacher. I am so glad I didnt reject God that day He called me into the family of God, I really dont think I would be alive. Please say yes on that day when He calls you.

A fool says in his heart there is no God

I have to say Matt I'm surprised how disrespectful you are to people at times on your shows. Fair enough you may not agree but they are peoples views and I wouldnt count anyone as stupid for having them, as long as they do not affect other people.