Can I Beat The 3 Minute Atheist Challenge? 

YOU'RE THE MAN!

Great video

@@RedPenLogic True I've always have said that!

Peace unto you brother Mike do you have or recommend a Christian respond video on buddhism ? Thank you have a good day

Thanks

For real. It's almost a paperthin strawman with aids at this point

I will say, the "personal God" point is a powerful anti-theist - though not atheist - argument

Let’s see you come up with a challenging question

@@pauljones3875 I can't because Christianity is perfect 😏

My question would be how has your God affected you so much so that you believe in his existence?

Yes. And I’m glad someone noticed.

@@MikeWinger it only took a year lol

@@MikeWinger you must be watching the old series on TV land because that’s my generation and I’m a grampa, 4x’s over. Interesting addition/technique.

The voice too

@@MikeWinger you stalking the comments on the video for a year to see if anyone noticed 😂

There are…but a lot of the ones on the list are pretty common or have slight variants. Perhaps there will be a tier 2 version in the future.

Did he though? Seems like the majority of answers contradict themselves.

@@bensmith5581 really? Please tell me how

@@kkubek5748 he didn’t answer the other gods question, what evidence or reason did he give that shows that his god exists while other gods are just fairy tales

As is usually the case for religious arguments, both sides did terribly. Almost every conclusion here relies on circular logic. That is to say, the fact that creationist belief is impossible to prove by nature means it is equally impossible to disprove. You're never going to get anywhere by appealing to logic, especially with someone intent on defending that belief.

No, it's just the historical baggage. Typically when asking for "proof" of God, people are employing a unique standard which is never applied to anything else.

@@marvalice3455 What? Atheism and science especially always ask for proof of things. There is no proof of God's existence. There is also no proof of the ether existing. That's why nobody thinks there is an ether. There is also no proof of flat earth, which is why very little believe the earth is flat. Standards of proof have been set even for your 6th grade science project, so I don't know what you are talking about.

@@quinn28 you don't know what _you_ are talking about. First if all, you appeal to things "most people don't believe in" as if that matters while talking about God which most people _do_ believe in to some extent. Second of all, there is no universal standard of proof outside of mathematics. You are simply assuming that there must be. For instance, the most popular standards of proof in the legal system are "beyond reasonable doubt" which any lawyer will tell you is incredibly ill defined and "preponderance of evidence" which just means that there is more positive evidence for than positive evidence against. Believe in God can be argued to meet both of those standards, but neither are necessarily convincing to everyone. Ehat is more, science does not ask for proof of things at all. It asks for proof _against_ things, and when said proof not substantial it holds that the statement may be true. Atheism is diverse. You can claim that _an_ atheist demands proof of things, but that only accounts for the one person. There is no central authority on atheism who can demand all atheists conform to a cannon of beliefs.

@@marvalice3455 To address this: "First if all, you appeal to things 'most people don't believe in' as if that matters while talking about God which most people do believe in to some extent." How much people believe in a thing doesn't matter to me. The reason I brought up those examples is because they are example of things that have been disproven by scientific investigation. Secondly it is true that science doesn't ask for things to be proven, but for things to be disproven. However, things must show some evidence to be true before they can even be considered by the scientific community. Before Newton, if you brought up the ideas of gravity and orbit, people might call you stupid, or just laugh and think you are making up a story. But newton logically determined that there is reasonable evidence that gravity exists, so it was scrutinized by the scientific community. The reason the God is not scrutinized by science, is because there is no way to measure him, and there is no way to even provide any evidence that would show that he does, so God is simply not worth studying. Finally, when you say "For instance, the most popular standards of proof in the legal system are "beyond reasonable doubt" which any lawyer will tell you is incredibly ill defined and "preponderance of evidence" which just means that there is more positive evidence for than positive evidence against. Believe in God can be argued to meet both of those standards, but neither are necessarily convincing to everyone." I completely agree. There is no real positive evidence for God, and there is no real positive evidence against his existence, so you cannot assume that he exists. This is called the burden of proof. You have to provide evidence that God exists before you can say that he does, at least in a scientific setting. Science sets out to find things out about the world with no expectation on what is true or not. There is simply a hypothesis, and an experiment that would prove or disprove the hypothesis. And there is simply no science that proves OR disproves God, so logically, you cannot assume his existence.

@@quinn28 so, I typed out a really long in depth point by point response to this, but than my finger slipped on the mouse, and I lost 45+ minutes of typing, so please forgive the briefness of this response. I only have so much time before leaving for work. lol to sum up, you seem to have a very dogmatic view of science. while it is true that science itself makes no positive claims about the world, and that it relies on hard evidence, these are only generalizations. every individual experiment _must_ make positive claims and assumptions, because otherwise the human mind cannot interpret the data. while other experiments may assume contrary ideas, this still comes together to create consensus which are positive claims people make using science. additionally, science is based entirely on the idea that the personal testimonies of large groups of people are reliable. allow me to elaborate. while it is true that the core of scientific research is about what can be observed and repeated by multiple independent parties, _this itself is testimony_ because while one team can preform an experiment and record their findings, they must trust that the majority of other groups are honest about their tests and observations. what is more _you_ cannot repeat many of these tests. an average person lacks the equipment, the skill and the knowledge to preform many experiments, or even to read the results and understand them. you and I rely on the system to be fair and honest in its findings, and not to collaborate to present a united narrative for their personal gain. this is especially true of the more "exceptional" findings in research. I cannot observe subatomic particles. you cannot see the curve of the earth, or the expansion of space. you can only trust that those who explain the data are being honest. I do the same when it comes to religion. (edit: yes, this is _super_ short compared to my original response. probably a good thing in retrospect. lol)

😆

I just bought me 5 lbs of gummy bears and while I did it all I remembered was seeing Mike eating a gigantic one 😅

Oh good not just me then

Omg this is why I just bought gummy bears

How did you come to conclude that this god you've mentioned is required for my having the ability (or capacity) to argue?

@Josh ben Name one phenomenon that has begun to exist.

@Josh ben So you assert the entire universe just instantaneously popped into existence?

@Josh ben I am an atheist and that is not my conviction. So your assertion is false. Wouldn't you agree?

@Theo Skeptomai How would you say the universe came into existence?

Which one?

@@peternelson7048 By probability alone, whichever one she was born into. Isnt it quite sad to believe that your chance of going to heaven is mostly based on luck lol?

@@Yamyatos It does seem like a shame. The odds are pretty poor as well to be honest...

👏

It’s the double standard that doesn’t apply to an atheist

@@trustme7660 Oh... Well nevermind, then.

@@Menzobarrenza im Agreeing with the comment

@@trustme7660 I know. I was sarcastically poking fun at the double-standard.

BOOM!

@@MikeWinger the anime-style glasses push-up is GOLD

@@JoshThom *Yu-Gi-Oh pose* it's time to d-d-d-d-d-duel!

Wow so is Mik your twin brother or something? You really do need to minister to him too, thoguh I do hope to see him again.

There's a time for all things... including a certain level of snark.

He simply states the fact that how someone comes to believe something has no connection to the possibility of it being true.

Love your name lol

Jesus Loves You ❤️.

@@audreyandremington5265 Jesus Loves You ❤️.

My thoughts exactly.

That's because Winger can only handle poorly framed low hanging fruit arguments. He is staying in his own lane, which is smart for business.

Sarcasm and ridicule is Scientism's best weapon!

Jesus Loves You ❤️.

@@anthonyciantar6015 Jesus Loves You ❤️.

@@Progressmoving Jesus loves you bro !

@@anthonyciantar6015 Jesus loves you!

Really? Which one was the best? And which one was the dumest

@@_.incredible_magnum._291 the goofiest one is God doesn't exist. Which is a emotionally driven fallacy

@@IsraelCountryCube agreed. The top one I saw was that because bad things happen, God doesn't exist

@@_.incredible_magnum._291 Best is probably suffering. Dumbest one - Can God create a rock so big He couldn't lift?

@@totalfunkin7212 i love that goofy argument. It's like asking a game coder to make an object in game so hot he can't use it. Doesn't make any sense

Yea, reading uneducated comments really made me want to be atheist! Just telling someone "ur belief is stupid" will obviously convince them in every situation! 😃

@@notoriusbookworm48 Ikr! Like if I scrolled a bit more I don't think I'd even be there. Man these youtube comments are so powerful

I don't think these are serious atheist challenges. I think they are Christian caricatures of atheist beliefs.

"God didn't exist, if he did he'd have a birth certificate." I've seriously heard that one.

@@eddardgreybeard that’s a good argument, the burden of proof lies on you after all.

Fair point. That could've been the reason.

Yeah some evangelicals are so sensitive. You tried to insult my god just to make me mad! I saw that!

@D Sullivan Right. What they sometimes miss is that “God” is capitalized because it’s a proper noun, not necessarily out of honor or reverence. Like I said, the same rule applies to “Mom.” :)

I think you did not get the point. We are not talking about grammar here. We are talking about trigger-baiting here. The main question here is that why he chose to say "a god" instead of "God". He has no problem stating "God" on his first point. But he clearly deliberately said "a god".

@@Menzobarrenza not convinced. He has no problem saying "God" in his first point but he chose "a god" instead of "God". If that atheist is not trigger-baiting, then I would expect him to use the term "God" throughout his comment (or " a god or gods"). But he used it interchangeably, as if those are synonymous when in fact it is not

Made me lol ngl. I do that xD

lol White and black

It seems it did "getcha" since he commented on it. Mission accomplished.

Also the Dutch angle

As an atheist I can confirm that this is how we experience the world.

Love how he pushes his glasses up with ceremony. Too funny

That’s what I was thinking. I was like they’re not asking the hard questions that no theist can answer.

It's from a comment that he got on a prior video. He showed it at the beginning of the video

Low hanging fruit....

I've encountered atheists and have seen atheists in videos ask questions like this and have even asked me questions like this. I've also been asked the hard questions too but the underlying tone still tends to ring what was in the 10 reasons listed by the atheist that was mentioned in the video.

@Isaac Welch hence the use of the word ‘reasonable’

Would love to listen to hour long video

You could watch it on repeat till an hour is up

@@sambeguely1132 I did that seriously to get my Mike Winger fix!!

How about some actual atheists?

@@themplar what do you mean

and a fedora and a neckbeard

And a fedora

@soundwave86 redditors are funny

Yeah, these are weak arguments. Atheists don't even need to prove anything to begin with. It's really on theists to prove god exists. If there isn't proof than they're just talking out of their asses.

@@ayylmao884 this is lacktheist nonsense. This is modern atheist jargon that isn't actually respected by the foremost atheist philosophers such as Graham Oppy. atheism is a positive claim. It's the claim that "there is no God" not "I lack belief in God". That's not the definition of atheism.

@@UltraX34 ok, that still doesn't change who the burden of proof falls on. I can't exactly prove something I don't believe exists. If you have hard proof I'd joint in a heart beat. But I'm not going to believe based on blind faith. You can argue semantics and what not all you want but at the end of the day you'll need to prove to me that God exists for me to believe. Also words change over time to represent how they are used.

@@ayylmao884 it's not semantics. Both the christian and atheist have to defend their position, claiming only one person has to give the burden of proof is absolutely false. An atheist can argue variety of religions and problem of evil. A Christian can argue the coherence of the universe, natural laws and contingency as arguments for God. Both sides have arguments, and both sides have issues that are harder to explain (for Christians it is definitely problem of evil, and for Atheists it's the fact that the universe appears to be designed for life). The common answers from both to these harder challenges are often not good - the free will theodicy for Christianity is not terrible, but it's not the whole thing. It feels incomplete. Thankfully good apologists are giving better responses to the problem of evil. The "well There's a multiverse of universes and we are in one that is life permitting" is a terrible explanation of design. 1.) What evidence is there of a multiverse? 2.) Who caused the multiverse? So both sides have things they need to explain.

@@ayylmao884 edit: what caused the universe. Saying "who" seems like I'm begging the question

Praying for you 🙏

Let's add your brothers name to our Prayer list!!! Got a first name, Please?

@@michaelfleming213 my brothers name is Bert, and Michael, he needs prayer thank you so much for this request!! His wife at 48 suffered a massive stroke on thanksgiving morning, she’s currently in yale hospital in CT, her name is Tanya and she is a believer!! My pray is for a miraculous healing so God may be glorified!! Thank you so much for this, you made me cry!! God bless you!! I have included you on my prayer list brother!!!

@@chrisw8627 I'll be praying too. God is good and sovereign. Peace be with you this holiday season 😊

@@levi-lukesmith3504 thank you Levi!!! God is good!!! So good!!! Look at the family I never met he’s putting before me to pray for my family!! Praise God and bless you!!!

Jesus Loves You ❤️.

@@Progressmoving the lord also loves you ✝️❤️☦️

@@Progressmoving yooo

Maybe they should do this often ;-)

Had to slow the speech in the upper right of the screen.

He was too scared he'd become an Atheist and he knew it, thats why he jumped over and pushed aside so many of the questions

Same here

Same here

Moi aussi

If i say "me too" wil you get deplatformed? Just kidding! I, as well! 😀😇😎

This is like making a video called “10 ways to prove air doesn’t exist.” Theres no way in Heck you can convince me God doesn’t exist...I’m just talking from a personal prespective.

This comment is vacuous because it doesn't make any statement. It just says "some claims exist but have no evidence" It doesn't give any specific claims that lack evidence, nor does it challenge the commonly sighted evidence for the most common claims. It is mere assertion

@@marvalice3455 Comprehension issue? The statement is making a reference to a set of claims, specifically theological claims. Theological claim entails various ideas asserted as being about a non-contingent intelligent agent. Intelligence is developmental and thus contingent as we observe/understand such. Thus, the claim of a non-contingent intelligent agent is an impossibility due to the claim being inherently contradictory.

There are lots of assertions for atheistic claims, but the claims are vacuous given that there is no evidence (demonstrable cause/effect linkage) for such claims.

@@DruPetty42 Should I take your comment as an issue of trolling or ignorance? Assuming the later, atheism is predicated on theism since such is solely about theistic claims.

@@MyContext Funny seeing you make an attempt at a demeaning comment. You assumed wrong of course. I'm dying laughing 😂. Atheism has changed over the years and wasn't always solely about theistic claims. Atheists say that but that's not entirely true.

So you’re closed minded

@@chrisgreen8803 unlike you I actually analyze evidence and look at things unbiased I don't see atheist doing that

It makes more sense to say an atheist is closed minded.

@@jacobkeenan3674 agreed

@@Alex-yr8iy But you wrote, in bold text, AND NEVER WILL.... That’s closed minded... You are saying that, even if new evidence was discovered, you wouldn’t change your mind

We need @acts17apologetics to get in on this.

David Wood is a psychopath.

@@AndJusticeForMe so? What’s that got to do with anything?

@@mr.k1896 You’re right. Psychopathy has no bearing on anything.

@@AndJusticeForMe then why mention it?

In my opinion, he came off more condescending than humble which I think is a negative attribute

I don't think so. Some people can reason themselves out of their unreasonable positions.

I'd say if you didn't use logic or reason to arrive at a belief then really bad logic may be all it takes to destroy that brief.

So do Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Christian Scientists, etc. Your feeling is not unique.

aBeautiful C..Alvin Plantinga said that while there is plenty of evidence for God, the fact of the Holy Spirit within is evidence enough for me

@@vilicus77, not sure of your point. There is no evidence for any God beside Yahweh. The resurrection of Jesus proved Yahweh.

God bless you and your descendants!!!!

@@vilicus77 lol. Excellent point. But yeah... they’ll simply ignore what you say... just as Vikings lived lives & DIED believing in Thor & Odin... as Romans did the same, praying to Mars & Jupiter... as Muslims do to Allah... I guarantee any Viking/Roman/Greek laughed at the first mention of Christ, & said exactly what Christians say, the classic “but that God isn’t actually real.” Lol KAY, GOOD THING THE CHRISTIANS FIGURED OUT WHICH GOD IS ACTUALLY REAL :) HAHA...it’s why you’ll see I just posted a very long rant reply to Mike...

Wow I've been talkin to atheist in the comments section guess what I got? Stupidity Look around you for evidence, your cognitive ability, our planet is wonderfully and beautifully made. Hopefully you can digest that

@@thenostalgicsidekick3076 The amount of suffering and pain in the world can also be a large stumbling block to people, however.

When Mik was reading the questions the clock was still running. When RPL was reading, It seemed like the clock stopped. Should Mike be awarded those extra 2s per question? If so he finished with much more than 0:01 remaining. I think it was planned. 😎

No, only the cringiest atheist arguments.

@@carsonwall2400 I agree. Though I ultimately think that atheism is very foolish, there are a lot less foolish arguments than this.

Christopher hitchens vs Doug Wilson. There's a movie about it called "Collision" available on RU-vid. Very entertaining.

It's a load of stock apologist answers that don't prove God either

@@colinmatts Who says anything about wanting to “prove” God? Take your modernist assumptions about knowledge and leave.

Sounds like d.i.d or scritzophrenia

​@@xironevarus576 What is scritzophrenia? (I know what it is, I want to hear what you think it is)

@@Legendendear audio or visual hallucinations. Like hearing ghost wizards

@@xironevarus576 Sry. I asked the wrong question. What do you think _causes_ scritzophrenia/hallucinations

@@Legendendear there's a whole host of precursors. From chemical to environmental. Including mass hysteria

Really? I think he failed pretty much to 100%. Would like you to explain what you think was good about his reply. Here is why i like the 10 points: 1: The first point alone is really good. As a theist it would make me think that nobody has ever believed in my god until other people brainwashed people to believe in this or that god. For example, when the first Christian missionaries came to America, when the Christian god would actually be real, there would already have been Christians in that country. No such thing has ever happened. 2: The second point is also correct. No theist who is giving this a second thought could possibly come to the idea that if he had been born in let´s say ancient Europe in the time of the Vikings and everybody around him had worshipped Wotan or Thor, that he would have been a Christian anyways. 3: Yeah, with all our scientific knowledge the only place where gods can still exist is outside of time and space, and everybody who thinks about that should figure out that this is essentially the same as not existing at all. 4: Yeah, the Christian god is as likely to be real as all the millions of other gods we humans invented, and he is just a very weak copy from other older gods such as Horus, Mythras, or of course Chrishna (Christ). And yeah we atheists do not believe in the Christian god for probably the same reasons why Christians do not believe in all the other gods. 5: Yeah, this doesn´t debunk a god in general but at least it debunks a "good" god who cares about humans. No good god would give aids and ebola to billions of helpless children. 6: Yes, obviously the primitive authors of the bible believed that there are plenty of gods. And i always wondered how an all-powerful god can be jealous. 7: There is not a single supernatural effect or soul, spirit whatever ever been demonstrated, and i think that is a perfectly good reason not believing in such claims. 8: Most atheists accept that nobody knows how the universe came into existence, and yeah except maybe Kraus only theists believe that something can actually come from nothing. 9: Also a great point given that this universe is dead and lethal to way over 99.999999999999999999999999999999999...%. 10: Big bang is not evolution. Evolution is what we know from science about how life evolved over time. And yeah it debunks dark age fairytales about gods creating humans from dirt or ribs.

Concise? His answers had more holes than swiss cheese.

The atheist has wrong points

@@EasternOrthodoxChristian All atheists have wrong points. Now what is your point?

@@sleepyavii9307 bible and Jesus Cope harder

@@sleepyavii9307 ok avii

@@sleepyavii9307 my point is the bible and Jesus, atheist have abberations misunderstanding and basically ignorance

Jesus loves you still, bro :)

@@davidm4566 Muslims accept Jesus, pointless to tell them about him

@@thechanglongwang They don't accept him for who he is, and what he's done, though. The ones that accept him think he was just a prophet. Also, it says in the Koran to kill those who do not convert to Islam. Jesus said the way you treat the least of humans is how you treat him, so the ones that do that have been treating him that way.

@@davidm4566 where does it say that?

this comment is pretty good evidence of atheism

There is no “proof”, by modernist standards of knowledge that atheists claim to subscribe to. So that wouldn’t work.

Ya first question, show empirical evidence for a god. Well there isn't any so....

If only there was any actual evidence of god....

@@markdwolf3198 if only you can see love, dark matter, gravity, radio waves, atoms, oxygen, emotions, conscious oh wait you can’t see them but you believe they exist. Why? Well same with God.

@@savioromie9534 thats not an argument for the existence of a god. Because I can't see radio waves that means there is a god? That response doesn't compute.

For real

"Living God"? Where's he living?

@@colinmatts Even though you are trolling, it was a poor attempt. Sorry. Even if you don't believe in God, you know that he resides in Heaven. Next.

@@colinmatts That's a 5 year old asking a question...

@@JD-kf2nz How do you know there is such a place as heaven, or, that God lives there? By the way, I am not trolling. I am engaging with the comments in what I believe is an honest and pertinent manner.

That would be a good idea. I remember seeing a few of them when I was younger.

You mock science while using the fruits of science... The cognitive dissonance is strong with you.

This is a strawman. The ancestor of homo sapien (aka us) is also the ancestor of most primates. It is also a non sequitur for the atheist to claim evolution debunks theism without question begging or special pleading.

It definitely does, WAY more faith is needed to accept evolution than God. That there are many who overplay their hand concerning it to claim it as fact really says it all.

So are your arguments against Christianity

@@DekoDeroman He wasn't arguing against Christianity.

@@DekoDeroman I'm a christian.

Answered how? With proof? And i mean actual proof. Not reciting some goat herder stories from a book that has been changed a rewritten countless times to fit the narrative of control.

@@ubertocreote3198 Wow how edgy. "rewritten countless times" is just incorrect. get your facts right first.

😂😂😂

I always find it interesting how atheists will use the one translation that mistranslates whatever verse they cite (therefore the translation that's convenient for them) in order to make their argument. Its very sus.

I know, right ?

RSV uses original manuscripts.

NASB >>>

Hi. I'm an atheist. If you think faith is a good thing, and if you think atheists have more faith... then aren't we better off than you? :)

He uses the Bible as a source to prove itself in a few seconds of the video.