Is Secular Humanism Superior to Christianity? Post Debate

Opening Banter and Debate Setup

All right, we are live, Apologetics Live, here to answer your questions, challenges, whatever you may have for us. If you want to join in the discussion, go to ApologeticsLive .com and you can get the links to join right there.

We are going to be putting this out on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, but the comments don't always come in from those different places. I think I can only get from YouTube and Facebook, some of the Facebook places, and some Twitter.

But yeah, so if you want me to see any comments so we can put them in, well, then make sure you go to YouTube and watch it there, or just go to ApologeticsLive .com. That is the link that has the show where you can watch it as well.

What we're going to do, I'm going to jump in quickly because I want to bring in my friend here, Marlon Wilson. He was the moderator for the debate that we're going to be discussing today. You've done a number of debates on your Gospel Truth Show.

So you got, I think you still have one coming up with Dr. Silvestro, correct? Yes, I do.

He's going to be debating Michael O 'Keefe. I believe that's his name, Michael O 'Keefe, and they're going to be debating the Old Testament, Younger's Creation, and they're going to be debating the Morality in the Bible, should I say.

All right, well, that'll be a fun one to watch. Unfortunately for folks, if they're watching on YouTube, they get to see the mess that is called my office. Usually I get a camera that zooms in a little bit closer so you don't see all of the mess.

So I'll just keep my hands like this all the time so that no one sees. Kind of like the Wizard of Oz, don't mind the man behind the curtain. So let's talk, because I know you got a very important thing coming up in about half an hour.

And so you're going to have to skedaddle. You got a soccer game. Yep. A soccer game that's that important? No, it's Who's Soccer Game, isn't it? That's what it is, man. Who's Soccer Game it is, man. Always.

Now there's this question, everyone's like, who is it? Should we tell them the famous person whose game you're going to watch?

My little lady, Janiyah.

You're going to think someone like you're going to watch a professional player or something, but no. You got a soccer game with your daughter to go be at. So real quick, let's talk about the debate that I had.

We had a debate. We had a debate on your channel, the topic. I had to look over at his name. Stephen Bonnell was his name. And the debate was, is secular humanism superior to Christianity? Because I've been saying, did he choose that topic or was that one that you chose and you gave it to him and then contacted him?

Yeah, if I remember correctly, I chose a topic and I threw it at him and he said, sure. And then that's when I took it to you to see if you would be ready to go for it. You said, sure. And that's when you jumped on there and said, man, it's about to be a slaughter, man.

It's over, man. It's already on before it started.

I like what Andy Foreham had said on Facebook there. He said, Andrew, we won the debate with the topic. Pre-assumes the ultimate standard, which cannot exist in atheism. So I think he nailed it. It was like, I was like, really?

You want to debate this topic? Okay.

Yeah, he did. He jumped right on it and said, you know, let's do it. I was like, okay. All right. If that's what you want, you know, if that's what you want, go with it. Hey, you know, you got to take what you get though, man.

You just got to take it, man.

Look, I actually, let me ask you this. Have you, has you gotten any response? What I was really hoping was a response that you were going to get was that some professing atheist was going to watch this debate and be like, man, I, this guy did so bad.

I got to debate him that same topic. Because I think you and I both agreed he wasn't a very good debater. Yeah.

I think to answer your first question, I didn't get any response saying that, that, you know, that he wanted to give you a shot and anything, but I'm sure that'll come down the road. But as far as Steven and his preparation and I just think that it seems like he woke up and just threw his shirt on and jumped into it, you know, and I'm kind of like, come on, man, you know, you're going on a show.

You know, somebody invited you on a show, at least have the courtesy enough to, you know, sort of get yourself together, prepare yourself some, you know what I mean? So it just seemed like he was just out of it.

Like he didn't, like he didn't prepare, so to speak, if that makes sense.

It, well, it seemed like he was distracted. I was joking because he said he's a gamer. I thought maybe he was playing games and we'll let folks watch this to see, but he definitely seemed distracted. Yeah.

It seemed like he didn't even want to be there.

Yeah. It seemed like it was, you know, we I reached out to Steven about two months prior to you guys debate. And, you know, when doing that, you know, there's an expectation that comes with it. You expect them to be like, OK, you know, plenty of time preparation.

And we expect them to come in and really desire to be there. You know what I mean? Desire to participate. You know, it's disappointing that when somebody agrees to something and then our hearts they seem to not want to be there.

You know what I mean? And not really want to do it. Yeah. I mean, and folks, we may end up playing the full debate. I'll definitely have a link for this debate that you can go watch it on Gospel Truth.

But the thing that got me with this was when he went in, I mean, right from the opening he had, I'll have to time it because opening seemed like it was a four minute opening. Yeah, it was. It was really quick.

Yeah, I was. Yeah, it was really quick. And I think that just shows the care that he put into it. You know what I mean? It's unfortunate. But even though he did not put much effort into it, I still feel that you took care of business, though.

You represented well, though.

I tried. I mean, I think it's kind of easy with that topic. I mean, I was actually hoping some professing atheist was like, reached out to you and like, Marlon, man, I got to debate this guy on that topic.

People see someone do bad, like my debate I had with the Black Hebrew Israelite. Everyone was like, they start reaching out to me like, I'll debate you because that guy did so bad. I do better. Okay, here's show up to Apologetics Live.

Yeah. Don't show up.

It's all good, though. It's all good. I'm sure it's come running in and come running in real quick, though. Don't worry.

Yeah. So if folks want to chime in, go to ApologeticsLive .com. There's links to join. You can join us here and join in the discussion as we play through it. We're just going to stop it wherever it needs to be stopped if we want to.

And so that's how we're going to do tonight is a post debate discussion. Now, some of the things before you go, because I know you're going to want to take up most of the time with you. With this debate specifically, we already mentioned it seemed like he didn't want to be there.

It seemed like he was distracted. It's funny because you kind of said he looked like he threw a shirt on, just showed up like maybe he was up late gaming all night. I don't know. You've actually had a number that was commented to Eli.

It's like, what is it with all these gamers that just they think they could do philosophy? No idea, man. No idea, man. Get a job. I don't know. Right. Because the guy that Eli debated was like, this is what I do full time.

And I was like, really? Like, OK, I do gaming and YouTube. Right. Right. Kind of interesting. I'll use the term interesting. It wasn't a career path when I was a kid. I know that. Either one of them. Right.

Right. So with this debate, when you think about all the debates you've set up, you've set up a lot of good debates. I kind of felt even as someone that would watch it, almost disappointed. Yeah. It seemed like only it didn't seem like both of us were as prepared.

Yeah.

I just see. I think I think part of it is just a seriousness. You know what I mean? Like, you obviously take the craft of apologetics serious. You know, this is something that God has blessed you with.

So this is a gift. And it seems as though when Stephen jumped in there, it just seemed that he doesn't take it serious. You know what I mean? These are engaging. Even if we disagree, obviously, we disagree.

You know, there are. This is an engaging aspect. This is something that everybody's going to see. This is something that's going to be on live in front of the worldwide audience, essentially. You know, we thought on YouTube and stuff like that.

So there's an aspect of a sincerity and seriousness that you take with this. And we just didn't see that from Stephen. And that's why his appearance and that's why his presentation failed.

Yeah, I think even if you think about, you know, we had on this show, we had a debate with Ken Cook and Rob Barnhart. And, you know, it was Rob's very first time debating. So you see some things that it's like, OK, it's because he's not used to being in a debate.

He got emotional at one point. It's like that that happens. I've done that in my debates. But this wasn't this guy's first debate.

Yeah, it wasn't. And I think I think I think it's probably some confidence, overconfidence, arrogance there. You know what I mean? It's just like, man, you know, and I'm this is me behind. I'm listening to you guys interact.

Right. And I'm getting because the whole idea of the gospel truth is to put a presentation out there to make sure that this presentation is good, that it's God glorifying and it's good. You know what I mean?

So when I invite people on, I expect them to be prepared. You know, so I'm behind. I'm listening to you guys interact. And I'm just like rolling my eyes. I'm frustrated. I'm irritated. You know what I mean?

Because this is something this is a Christian platform. And with everything with a Christian platform, I want this platform to be on point. And whenever people come on and they don't do they don't do what I expect, you know, it's irritating.

It's frustrating. I mean, look, you're setting up a bunch of debates, a bunch of good debates. And they're educational. Debates are somewhat entertaining. Granted, there's there's that aspect. I mean, that's on that's part of a debate.

I understand. But you want it to be educational. You want to be informative. That's that's the purpose of a debate. And, you know, what you end up seeing in this is that this wasn't a it wasn't a good debate.

I felt bad in the debate because I'm like, OK, granted, he didn't lose the debate. I jokingly said online is really kind of interesting. I jokingly said online after we did the debate and you aired it.

I put the link and I said, I actually didn't need to show up to the debate to win. I mean, he he demolished his own view. It's opening and his opening was only like three, four minutes long. Yeah. Didn't even realize he did it.

But he did such, you know, and this is the this is the thing. It's not I don't want this to come off as insulting to the guy. It's just that I watched him in a previous debate because you send me a link to a previous debate.

He did. He's he's done a couple of them. I didn't know. I think you nailed it in. And this is the same thing I thought. I think he was just so arrogant in his argumentation because his argumentation was like, I'm right.

Yeah, that's basically what it was. And if you also notice. Wow. He totally tried to undercut the format of the debate. I mean, that is like, OK, I sent you and him a copy of the format, like the proposed format that we're going to do.

And instead of following the format, he, you know, what the format was so that. OK, so the format was 10 minute openings from both parties. And then we had about a 60 minute discussion, cross examination session, 10 minutes per person for a total of 30 minutes each.

And so what he did instead of cross examining you and asking you questions, he took 20 minutes of his 30 minutes and did rebuttal rebuttal rounds. You know, and I'm like, come on, man. You know, I know you don't believe what we believe.

I know you don't respect us. I know you don't respect my show. I know you lack respect for Andrew. But do don't come on here. You know, just disrespect is super disrespectful, you know, to come in and undercut a format of a host that invited you on his show.

OK, so let's so we do the opening doesn't do full opening the the cross examination. You and I ended up sending you a text privately just saying, OK, he's doing a rebuttal. What do you want me to do? Should I do a rebuttal?

You're like, yeah, I guess do a rebuttal. And then you explain to him what a cross examination is, which I think the way you did it was pretty gracious. You explained it to him. Hey, this is what it is.

And then he goes back into a rebuttal. And I'm like, what do you want me to do? Because I have all these questions I want him to answer.

Yeah. Yeah. And that's why I jumped in and I was like, OK, this is what we're going to do. We're going to give you a rebuttal round. We're going to let you have a rebuttal. I'm going to let Andrew have a rebuttal and then we're going to go into the to the cross.

He goes back to a rebuttal. Yeah. You start asking questions and then the next round we did a cross. But I think, you know, to me, and this kind of plays into what you were saying with the arrogance thing.

To me, it seemed as if he wanted a monologue.

And if that's what he wanted, if that's what he wanted and he didn't want if he wanted just a conversation between you two, you know what I mean? And just something where there's nobody interrupting, nothing of that nature.

I think we both would have been like, OK, no problem. No problem. I mean, I would just let you guys talk for 60 minutes. I don't even think he wanted me to talk, period. Yeah. He just wanted to filibust the whole thing.

You know, it's absolutely silly.

Look, cross examination is probably one of the most important parts of any debate. Anytime you watch a debate, the cross examination, it's where it's where one person puts the screws to another person.

Right. It's like I feel the pressure. You know, like, what do I do here? That's what you're going to get in a cross examination. Yeah. And so it was strange because like there's no cross examination.

What are we going to do? And that's I think that was a major. I think that was obviously the major frustration. First, he shows up apparently unprepared. Then his open statement. You know, I'm not really tripping over the statement.

You know, I sort of be kind of gracious when it comes to that. You know, if you open the statements five minutes, if it's 10 minutes, go for it. You know what I mean? It is what it is. But the cherry on top of the sundae is when he just undercut the whole format and just did two rebuttal rounds.

You know, I just kind of like, man, this is not the desired way of doing things for this. This platform, because I really want people to learn the arguments of the atheistic position. You know, I want him to ask you questions.

So my audience can look at you up and say this is as a believer. This is how I am to respond to an atheist when they make this particular argument. You know what I mean? And unfortunately, you didn't get the full amount of time to make those rebuttals because he chose to take.

Two rounds and use that as a rebuffer of your argument.

I just was actually OK with the one round of a rebuttal because I didn't mind doing the rebuttal. I mean, it's hard to rebut his opening statement when it was so short. But yeah, the the actually the interesting thing I I'll give you this and people can play this as we play it.

They can watch this and maybe you'll you'll get the insight of my brain as I was thinking. But he did his opening and it was so short. I was actually sitting there going, wait a minute, because he's setting me up.

I know he's done debates before and there are people that play do tactics in debates. And so you just got to know that. So here's the thing I was actually thinking, because I was expecting whenever we debate this topic, I was all prepared on the slavery arguments.

I had all my arguments laid out. I'm like, OK, you know, I got I'm prepared to address slavery, the killing of Canaanites and all that. Like there's answers to these things that the atheists don't like.

And I'm like, OK, I'll be ready to give the answers because that's going to be he's going to make this moral argument, which, you know, it's like once he does that, he's trapped because I'm going to do presuppositional apologetics.

I do the presupp anyway because he's making claims for worldview and it's like, whoops, no, he can't be lost.

Don't have a foundation for it, brother. Can't do it.

He was just like it was like he's like just going, well, science is better than than religion. I'm like apple and oranges. You don't like as a Christian, I can do science.

Secular Humanism, Free Will, and the Burden of Proof

Yeah, I think if I can make it stay real quick, he said it was one thing he said in every boat around. I wrote a guy says that any idea that we can gather, any time we can gather ideas is going to be better than more superior to Christianity.

In other words, he was saying that the way I took it was that he said that if you're a Christian, you're just taking the faith as for as it is. You're not analyzing it. There's no analyzing the Christian faith.

What are you talking about? You know, he's undermining the intellectual aspect of the Christian faith. You know, and I think that is, once again, ridiculous. And that just shows that he doesn't understand the construct of the Christian faith.

You know what I mean? So, you know, my response would be like, you know, he's assuming that the Christian doesn't analyze. He also assuming that his standard is true, that he has a standard of truth, that he has a foundation upon which his standard of truth is on.

And we know that the atheistic position just simply is not the case. You know what I mean?

Yeah, and this is this is what I thought. Same thing you just said. He just he made his claim and then was begging the question. Sure. Let me bring. Let's see. This is a low keel brought you into discussion here.

Well, here, baby crying in the background. I don't know if you have anything you wanted to add before we play the debate.

Oh, sorry. I didn't know this was this was just on right away. I'd have to argue the whole claim that Christianity would be intellectually supported in a sense. I mean, first off, you have the Bible, right?

OK, you read the Bible, you read through the Bible, you find conflicts from gospel gospel. OK, then you have to choose what you want to take seriously. Hold on. The gospel is contradicting each other means you have to.

You can't take them all seriously. Luke Luke Luke L compare that to three and find that. Hello. With history to Luke L. Luke L.

Can you hear me? Oh, yes. OK, so let me let me explain some to you. You talk about the different things of in the gospels and you're saying that proves that the that the Bible can't be true. It has you kind of indicate that you think it has contradictions.

Do you realize that if it didn't have different accounts of similar stories, it would not be eyewitness testimony? It would be manufactured. That's the thing.

It's not. As a matter of fact, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, their honorary namings. Look, look out. Hold on. There is no eyewitness testimony. They're all hundreds of years after Jesus. It was a birth. OK, look out.

I mean, his supposed death. OK. Years after Luke L. No eyewitness testimony.

Luke L. Luke L. Are you there? Oh, yes. OK, so so let's try to break this down. So have you have you watched the have you watched any of the Democrat National Committee debates?

OK, let's see. Let's see. Well, back ago. So not the same thing as recently. Let's say you watched one.

Do you think that the New York Times reported on the debates? I mean, is this a simple question? Yeah. The New York Times did report on the debates, right? They're going to do that. They're a news agency, right?

I forget which news agency. It's a simple yes or no answer. That's all it is.

Yeah. The New York Times is going to report on the debates. Same with the New York Post and the Boston Times and the San Francisco Times and the Washington Post. They're all going to report on the debate, correct?

Well, I suppose so. Let's compare them. Let's compare them. There's similarities in all of the reporting, aren't there? Yeah. There's differences in all the reportings, aren't there?

Yeah, but we have proof. We have no proof that Jesus ever existed. As a matter of fact, we have proof that he didn't. OK, so here's the thing. Christianity isn't even original. I mean, the character of Jesus is clearly ripped off of much older figures.

I see what you're doing. You threw out a bunch of claims, none of which you—. All of them are substantiated.

Name one eyewitness, one eyewitness account of Jesus. We'll go from there. OK, sure. You want one eyewitness account. We can go with Peter. No, no. Something outside of the Bible. Oh. Someone outside of the Bible.

Because the Bible's honorary. It's completely honorary.

Well, this is the whole thing. So here's the thing. Let me set it up. So how about the Jewish writers of the Talmud? They're not. The Jewish writers of the Talmud. The Jewish writers of the Talmud. And yet, if you listen to my Rap Report Daily podcast that I put out, I think, today, or it's the one for tomorrow, I talk about this very question.

Because people make the claim Jesus never existed. Even Bart Ehrman, who's not a Christian, looks to argue against Christianity.

That's called an appeal to authority.

Bart Ehrman's just an expert in his field. So you can look at the Roman historians. You can look at the writers of the Bible because you wanted eyewitnesses.

The Debate Turns to Cross-Examination

That's what that is. You're also taking him out of context. Because while you can say that a character who inspired the character of Jesus does not support a claim, that any biblically compatible version of Jesus ever existed in a historical context, which is precisely what has proven to be falsified.

No biblically compatible version of Jesus ever existed in a historical context. Lakel, you asked for evidence. You have the Bible. You want to reject that. You have Josephus. You want to reject that. You have the Jewish writers of the Talmud.

You're going to reject that. No, no, no, no. You brought up Josephus. You brought up Josephus. Hey, hold on. We're putting him in the back room so he can calm down. He's not listening. He just ran off the band.

He's not listening. This is almost like Steve. He just wants to ramble and not actually have a discussion. And do you guys hear the superiority that he has? He just thinks he's right because he makes a claim.

This is how support works. He says there's no eyewitnesses. I give him eyewitnesses. He then just says, no, that doesn't count. So I give him other eyewitnesses that don't fit. He wants it out of the Bible.

Okay, here's some that are outside the Bible. Okay, this is how this works. And you support a claim. Here's why I give him the Talmud. And Marlon, I know you're going to have to get going because you got an important doctrine, but I'll wrap this up.

We'll say goodbye to you. We'll bring him in. We'll play the debate. So here's the way this works. The writers of the Talmud responded to Christ in the time of Christ. They even respond to the resurrection of Christ.

Okay, so what they want to do and what you're going to hear him do is go, oh, you mentioned Josephus. Let me throw that historical evidence out. So no matter what you give a person like this, and we'll bring him back in.

We'll watch him do this. No matter what evidence he has, he will throw out the evidence because he starts with a conclusion. This is what's called confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when you only accept evidence that supports your conclusion.

And that's what you're going to see with him quickly because even Bart Ehrman, who's not a Christian, tries to discredit Christianity, writes a book saying that Jesus was never claimed to be God, but the disciples made him God in later writings.

He even says that it is absolute foolishness to say there was no evidence for a historical Jesus. Now he's going to say it was a different type of Jesus. We could debate that as well. But the reality is to make a claim there's no evidence is when people throw out all evidence.

So, Marlon, the later you get, the less before you've got to go.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, you look at the Romantastus, you know, you look at it, there's evidence out there that shows that Jesus Christ was actually a historical person. So, and it takes an extreme level of skepticism to reject the historicity of Christ.

I mean, a level of skepticism that would, that even learned historians don't hold on to. It's unfortunate that he has that view. And, you know, all we can do is just pray for him and continue to preach the gospel and tell people about the love of Christ.

All right. So real quick, before you go talk about your show, what do you got coming on? Then I'll bring Luke Hill back in.

All right. So, you know, if you guys got a chance, man, go over to the Gospel Truth on YouTube and on Facebook, you know, search my name, Gospel Truth Marlon Wilson, you know, check it out. Please like, follow, subscribe.

I got a whole bunch of debates. Actually, tomorrow at 6 p .m. Pacific Standard Time, I will be debating. I'll be debating Andrew Griffin. And we'll be debating, did Jesus need to be God in order to atone for sins?

But after that, we got a whole bunch of shows. I mean, a whole slew of shows all the way up to December, the end of December. So stay on the lookout. Please like and follow, share, subscribe, the whole nine.

May God be glorified in his platform. And Andrew Rappaport, God bless you and your ministry. Keep doing your thing.

All right. So who's going to be the moderator if you're doing the debate? I got my buddy. What's his name? Michael. I forget his name.

That's bad. I got my buddy. I can't remember his name now, man. He's going to be jumping on with me and he's going to be the moderator.

We'll edit that out of the podcast version. Don't worry. Yeah, definitely. It's all good. Hey, you got to get to a soccer game. Thanks for coming in. And we'll bring Luke Hill back in. All right. Be catching on gospel truth.

All right, for sure. Okay, Luke Hill. So let's see if we can walk through a couple of things before we play this debate and see how that goes. But so you made some claims. Let me first ask, what kind of eyewitness testimony would you accept?

Now, let me preface this. I want to know if you know who Jay goes by Jay Warner Wallace in his writings. But Jim Wallace, have you read his book, Cold Case Christianity?

In all honesty. No, I haven't. But I've read many other works. A matter of fact, I'm a student of Atari of sanding. Hold on.

We get it back and forth. So when I ask a question, it's like, it's not just taken. Jump off. Let me ask. Let me explain who he is and why I want you to get that book. Okay. Jim Wallace is a cold case detective, 20 years on the job.

His expertise is eyewitness testimony. He actually was reading the gospels to try to disprove the gospel. The same claim you're making. He wanted to prove that it wasn't good. Eyewitness testimony being an expert in the field, actually one of the leading experts.

He's been on Dateline and all this for his cold cases that he's done in L .A. Who goes through in that book and explains that what convinced him that the Bible was accurate was that it fits every case for what expert eyewitness testimony should look like.

The thing that proves it's wrong with the differences is exactly what you need in eyewitness testimony. I even gave you an example from today. If you were to look in any newspaper to any event that all the reporters were eyewitnesses to, they're going to talk about some differences and they're going to have similarities.

It doesn't mean that the false narrative that is portrayed is that all the gospels had to come from one source. Now, really quick, you mentioned that this comes from earlier religions.

I see you really want to be the one to do all the talking here. What's with that?

I mean. Well, I'm trying to answer all the things you did.

The Opening Statement and the Free Will Argument

You arrogantly act as if you have all the answers and then cut me off. I mean, you claimed I was excited or something and needed to calm down.

So I think you were put in the back room.

Yes, because you wanted to silence me because it didn't fit your narrative. It's the way a professional debates.

This is the way if you want to debate me, I'm in debate. This is not. We didn't set up a debate. So if you expect that you came in debating me, well, then you came in thinking you were going to surprise me, son.

You started. Are you aware of the forgeries and interpolations with the Joseph account that have been proven? Yeah. So are you just going to push those under a rug and try to just drag everyone along with your cult beliefs?

Okay. So here's the thing. You asked for evidence and every piece of evidence you're trying to reject. Why don't you? What about the Talmud?

Check that. Look, when it comes to the Talmud. You haven't read it, have you?

You know why I bring the Talmud up? Because you're atheist. Don't have an answer to that because they don't think through those things. Okay. Because they come up with your can.

Admittedly, I'm a little rusty over these things. So I have read over that at one point or another, but more along the lines. I forgot. Have you watched? Remember when I said I was a student to Acharya Sanning?

Have you watched the movie Zeitgeist? I'm asking. Are you aware that Acharya Sanning was in that movie?

Okay. So I'm going to ask it again because I want to see if we can get an answer. Yes.

Are you aware of the Zeitgeist source?

Or you want to take things out of the report on the debates and you can't even answer that.

So yes, I have seen Zeitgeist. And I've also read early the Zeitgeist source book on that. You haven't read the Zeitgeist source. Actually, that's not true. You don't know what I've read. I did read it.

Have you read the Zeitgeist source book? And if so, who authored it? So now let's deal with it. I don't remember the author. I'm sorry.

So here's the question. The claim that it's based on an earlier work. Now, the one thing throughout the Zeitgeist movie and from the book is the similarity that you see is that Jesus is born on December 25th.

Everything is backed up in the Zeitgeist source. Just answer a simple question. It is written by DM Murdoch, Acharya Sanning.

So you've studied it, but you can't even answer a simple question.

What I'm saying is if you're asking questions about it to try and discredit it, then you haven't read the Zeitgeist source book. No, that's the difference. Similarly to how you haven't read the Bible enough to understand that it contradicts it.

We'll put him back in the background so I can explain why I'm asking him the questions. And we'll ask him. He came in in debate mode. He's, I guess, really the one that needs to calm down. Because here's the simple thing.

He's going to claim to be an expert on something. He can't answer a simple question. Was the Zeitgeist movie. There's two elements that you're going to see throughout that movie and its source materials.

There's two elements that they use to say that all of these ancient Egyptian claims of deity, all these religions are tying together to Christianity. One, the birth date of December 25th. Two, the term son, S-U-N and S-O-N.

Now we're going to ask him. He's watched these. He's said he's an expert on these. He studies this. Can he confirm that those two are mentioned? I'm not trying to discredit this movie and its source material.