The causes Atkins gives are plausible, but not confirmed, this still doesn't give the answers required to the debate, rather faith in a cause, and that's what Christianity is about, faith, so it would rather damage his argument than support it. One chooses to believe without 100% proof. Faith.
LOL @ 1:10 ! Yes, Craig, they could have been bored. You can laugh but at least it's not an explanation that requires a supernatural cause. Atkins looks for the plausible, possible and NATURAL causes first. Unless those are ruled out completely, there is no need for a SUPERNATURAL explanation, which is by its very definition far more outlandish and farfetched.
A simple refutation of Craig is the conspiracy theory argument: If someone claims that the twin towers were bombed by CIA agents, then it is impossible to refute because whenever a claim is made in defense of the accepted dogma, it is asserted that 'that's what they want you to think'. when the Stoics claimed that nothing could be proven objectively - greek scholars crushed this argument by saying that they had to be skeptical of their own skepticism, and skeptical of the skepticism of ..etc
it is believable that love is possibly genetically evolved to provide the best chance for offspring to survive. this is why babies express neoteny. cuteness that is attractive, because prehistorically, babies who were not cute probably did not survive at as high a rate as babies who were ugly. a man who would die for his child had more of his genes passed on than a man who would let his child die. then that surviving child would also have the "die for my child" genes.
it sounds as if jesus was thinking "yeah, when i rise from the dead, i'm going to heal my body. but i'll still need proof that i'm jesus, so i guess i'll leave a couple wounds in my hands unhealed." also, jesus was thinking "i'm going to give my disciples physicial evidence, but will only save the souls of people who have true faith without seeing the physical evidence."
what's the simpler explanation? 1. the disciples were lying. 2. a man who actually was killed rose from the dead.
i believe that #1 is the much simpler explanation. the disciples wanted proof that the man they were speaking to was actually the man that was crucified. but wouldn't they know from all his wounds and cuts on his face and body and arms? no, because jesus was completely healed when he rose from the dead EXCEPT the piercings in his hands. this strikes me as arbitrary.
@clembashing problem with this theory is: 1) the jews did NOT believe in a dying and rising savior, they were expecting a earthly leader like King David. after He died, they were scared and ran to hide! after He was arrested they fled! 2) people DONT die for a KNOWN lie (if you can please cite me and example i would be grateful) 3) they were going back to their old lives which would have been quite simple for most of them, then the switched on a dime and chose torture, jail and death. cont...
@freeze32007 yet he was denied three time by his disciple? man, if i saw the son of god and he was miraculous, i don't think i'd deny him a single time. the son of god could bring me back from the dead, heal the world in one second, and give me eternal life for what i did on twenty years on earth. why would you deny him? well, if you are retarded, or don't believe in god, then you would deny him.
@clembashing pump ur breakes bro, peter denied Him BEFORE He rose from the dead. remember, they did not believe in a dying and rising God. when he saw Him arrested and beaten they thought it was all over. it was the resurrection that changed everything. and just like you said you would do if you saw the son of God so did they AFTER the resurrection. thus, providing very strong evidence FOR the resurrection. my point from the beginning.
@freeze32007 you said "people don't die for a known lie." Yet people of many religions have died for their religion. for example, muslims die for islam, and catholics die for catholicism. but, if you believe that these religions are lies, and that they are false, just like christians believe that islam is a lie, then, if you are a christian, you yourself believe that some people have died for a known lie (these people being martyrs of other religions).
@clembashing key word KNOWN lie. they BELIEVE it is true. this is not what happened in the case of the apostles. if they KNEW what happened to Jesus and were lying about hiding his body, the first time a whip hit their back, or the first time a stone hit their body they would have stopped LYING. as for muslims n other religions, you can BELIEVE a lie to be true and be sincere about it. those guys doin suicide bombings ect are true to the core believers in what they think is true.
@freeze32007 i understand your point. but, still, the gospels seem to have been written decades after the resurrection, which seems a little weird, as if they were written with a new agenda. also, peter didn't deny jesus after the resurrection, but didn't he witness many miracles, healing people, and raising them from the dead, and feeding thousands with something like 5 loaves of bread? it seems like these miracles didn't impress peter at all.
@freeze32007 also... it seems that maybe walking on water is a story about not having to be afraid when you believe in god. it seems odd that peter would deny god after he saw this miracle, unless it was a metaphor. it also seems odd that judas would betray god for some cash, like a badly written one-dimensional character. maybe he thought jesus could escape from any prison on earth, since he could just instantly go to the other side of the earth, or morph into a woman or child.
@clembashing peter was a very impulsive man. he even tried to kill a man right in front of Jesus! (john 18:10) he made mistakes just like we all do. but that has nothing to do with the fact they all died holding on to what they truly believed to be true, Jesus rose from the grave, not a lie .. they gained NOTHING and lost EVERYTHING. as for the gospels being written decades later, i urge you to watch this playlist
@clembashing so, if they were lying, you MUST account for where the whole idea of a rising savior came from (no horus, krishna, mirthra ect did NOT provide this) you MUST account why at least one hundred and twenty Jews (there were 12 disciples, but there were hundreds of other believers) would lie about a MAN being God and be willing to b tortured and killed for this lie. to gain NOTHING and lose EVERYTHING. THAT is much more complicated
@freeze32007 why 120 jews? why not the world? why didn't jesus heal the entire world or raise everyone from the dead? he is god, he can do that. it's because that would not be believable. there would be evidence that no one in australia was healed, or no one in russia raised from the dead. but raising one man or healing one cripple is more believable and you can lie about it. why walk on water? to impress people? would god want to be like "hey look! i can do miracles! does it impress you?"
@clembashing i would not need proof that it was jesus, if he really rose from dead. he'd have scars and wounds all over his body, i'd see him and be like "damn, you rose from the dead." But that's not how it happened in the bible. Jesus was completely healed, and changed his face, because the disciples didn't recognize him. Jesus selectively left his hands unhealed, so he could "prove" to people that it was really him. Jesus is god, but he's so weird, like he's trying really hard to prove it.
@clembashing why 120 jews? that was just what is recorded in the bible as being in the room during a meeting after His death. we dont know the total num of believers. we know that there were 3000 in one day who believed. Jesus didnt just go around raising everyone from the dead lol i think you are a little misinformed. He performed the necessary miracles to prove who He was and allow for a choice at the same time. i dont have the mind of God to say WHY he did everything the way he did tho. do u?
@freeze32007 i guess it's possible, but i find it somewhat random that God would walk on water to impress people and give me a choice to believe or not believe. and for someone who actually witnessed God to deny him three times. if i personally witnessed God, i would never deny him, since i'd have eternal life. i also find it strange to punish someone for eternity for what they did in 80 years on earth. a trillion years is nothing compared to eternity. every religion believes in weird things.
@clembashing just because u find it weird doesnt make it false.n u say u would nvr deny Him bt u dnt knw until ur in those shoes.n another thing, the MORE u are exposed 2 God,the more accountability u hv.u say u wnt God 2 come dwn n say HERE I AM BELIEVE! well,tht wld make u even MORE accountable for your sins n give u less "wiggle room".the Israelites in the desert for exmple were punished for COMPLAINING 2much cuz they hd so much exposure to God they were w/o excuse. PM me n we can tlk more.
@clembashing - You make total sense and don't sound as crazy as everyone else on this page probably thinks!
But all of us - sane, crazy (I mean mixed sanities) can agree that not only did atkins waste his superior Craig's time, but wasted all of our time, and has been doing so since 1998, right? I mean were the smart atheists busy that night so they called this hack to sit in?
@MrGunwitch care to share any of his bunkum? any thing you can point out that is false? can you prove him wrong? none of the others seem to have been successful. id LOVE to hear some ACTUAL "bunkum" if you can point any out. thank you. God bless
@MrGunwitch here WLC at Oxford debating with 3 of OXFORDS philosophers. enjoy. ill be waiting for you to prove him wrong somewhere the 3 professional philosophers could not.
@MrGunwitch - so using all of your ability to discern (every bit of it now) who won the debate? In this clip does atkins appear in control of his facial ticks?
let's see here, these atheists have praised WLC - hitchens (rip), harris, denett, have all referred to him as a strong adversary, but you, an annonymous atheist beleive they are wrong, and he is a "hack" is that your judgement? is this an example of your ciritcal thinking capabilities?
@MrGunwitch - okay, lets just focus on the basics: who won the debate? do you say the atheists I mentioned are confused about debate skills and oratory skills? each has said he is a strong debater, you see clearly and the rest of us are all confused?
I guess I can see why you are so impressed with atkins, he also manages to say nothing of signifcance, only he did it for much longer than you so far. Incidentally, I think he got into oxford because his father was an alumnist
Atkins clearly wins because Craig is talking complete rubbish. Rubbish spoken well is just well-spoken rubbish.
Typical hare-brained comment from a youtube weekend warrior...do you really think Atkins could hold down a professorship at Oxford, (in chemistry no doubt), just through nepotism? Do you have any conception of how incredibly demanding that role would be? Of course you'd need to be a college grad to have even a slight hope of answering that question...
@MrGunwitch I really think you are wasting your time arguing with this person. I have NEVER seen such a one sided debate in all my life and it is pure folly anyone who wishes to say that Atkins even had a leg to stand on throughout this debate. Craig is revolutionary I believe. I have major difficulties with a lot of aspects of the church but I believe a lot of people can learn from this man. He will never get the publicity with the way the media is inclined today.
@MrGunwitch HAHA the cheek of morons like you. It's one thing to try critically analyse rationally what they are saying but to call a genius like that with twice as high an IQ as you stupid...I need not even say. And "indoctrination"? In what religious text is any of his scientific deductions? IDIOT haha
love when people say "they wrote about it 50 year after his death" how do we know that? they could've written tons of stuff that got away during these 50 years.
I mean, that goes for ALL writings done during the ancient roman period.
To say, what we have left is the proof of what only was written is ridiculous.
ROFL atkins defense against the credibility of the NT is by saying that the apostles are stupid? all he has is namecalling to try and prove a point xD
more it goes to the end of the debate, atkins shows how much in common he has with a clown, than with a ... whatever he says he is. apostoles died because of boredom? i never heard such mockery and superficiality before. this man is a joke.
there are many muslims with similar hallucinations, but they never see jesus or mary, hindus have similar hallucinations, so do sikhs and buddhists... are ALL the world's religions correct.
this man is an idiot who's default setting is speciousness and hokum masquerading as intellectual thought.
@1878EFC2008 hallucinations of 70 people simultaneously plausible? Please...Is there a scientific precedent for such an event? that is why it's implausible!!!
You ever seen Derren Brown pretending to be a preacher. Plenty of people experienced what could be described as a hallucination. Is Derren Brown the second coming of Christ?
Also, how do we know all these people even had the hallucination anyway?
You have to explain away the fact that votaries of all the other faiths have experienced similar delusions....
@beto88keys Actually, that is quite common. In fact, it's easier for a magician (or a "reader") to preform their tricks in a crowd. Why? Because we are like sheep. Religious as well as atheists. Though, the claim should be that on this point religious are gullible.
@1878EFC2008 I didn't know Atkins was religious...oh wait...I see what you meant with your comment. What I saw was Atkins resorting to a series of awkward arguments that did not make any sense.
@erickinho1BRA My friend, the question was not "which language dominated the region after Jesus' death"... the Question was, what language was the Bible written in. Now i know Jesus' first language was Aramaic, so the NT couldn't have been written in Greek 1st time...
What is this? Atkins resorting to conspiracy theory made by fishermen than historical accounts and reconstructed and translated texts. Has he ever even heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls at least?
The ressurection of jesus was a hoax...oh and his divinity was then voted on by cardinals :) thats a fact....why did we have to vote about his divinity ?
@twoface4 they voted alright, but Jesus said it himself and didn't need their vote more than Galileo needed the church's vote to say the Earth revolved around the sun. READ THE BIBLE yourself, he clearly states to be God.
Poor WCL, hes so deluded. He thinks that the fact that 12 Jews were willing to give their lives for an alien belief is PROOF of the Resurection and validates Christianity!!! I suppose that means that several Arab men living in the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century, which was predominately pagan, were willing to die for a prophet who espoused a monotheistic god means ISLAM IS TRUE!!! Fucking great logic huh?
@123duffbeerrules He's not, you are. He thinks that the fact that 12 Jews were willing to give their lives for an alien belief is PROOF of THEIR SINCERITY.
Yeah? So lets see. By your brilliant logic the fact that HUNDREDS of Muhammed's companions giving their lives is PROOF of THEIR SINCERITY. And thus PROOF for Islam? Let me guess, "no". Please just shh.
@123duffbeerrules Dying (and being tortured to death) for a belief does not validate it. It only shows that the believer is sincere. Liars make poor martyrs. The disciples had to know the truth , they either saw the risen Christ or they did not (key point). If it's all lies why would they go perpetuate such unprofitable lie, and suffer persecution, imprisonment, torture, and death?
@bob0124 "Hundreds of Muhammad's companions giving their lives" yeah giving their lives in battle and declaring Holy War on the unbelievers.
But for the sake of the argument let's just say that there were companions persecuted and killed for their beliefs. In that case they surely are sincere , but they weren't witnesses (key point) to an event that would authenticate their message i.e. the resurrection of Muhammad or any of that sort. nor they preached that any such event took place.
Are you not listening or are you simply so deluded that you refuse to? There are NUMEROUS religions where followers are willing to go through unspeakable pain for their 'faith', the fact that Christians did so doesn't mean that the "Christ rose" (keep in mind retard, no one actually SAW him rise) anymore then Muslims dying for their cause validates Muhammed rising from Jerusalem in the Dome of the Rock. Now just keep your mouth shut.
@123duffbeerrules "Dying for a belief does not validate it, It only shows that the believer is sincere" I actually said that, only if YOU listen, or are you simply so deluded that you refuse to?
I never said or meant Christians (in general) dying for their beliefs, I said DISCIPLES. Because the disciples KNEW whether or not what they were professing was true. They proclaimed His death and resurrection and willfully endured prolonged torture and death rather than repudiate their testimony
@bob0124 The fact that you compare Muhammad's ascension to heaven and the resurrection of Jesus shows how ignorant you are and how you didn't understand a single word of what I said.
Muhammad's supposed ascension was at night with no witnesses to testify. No one believed in Islam because of it. Actually some people went APOSTATE because of it, yes they abandoned Islam when Muhammad told them of it - Tafsir Ebn Kathir, El Tabari, El Kortobi of Surah 17 ( tafsir = commentary)
There commitment to a metaphor is quite astounding. I hope to one day create a grand metephor and die from horrible torture just so that the metephore can live on for thousands of years.
Ya people really must be committed to a metephore to be willing to die horrible horrible deaths. I mean peter asked to be crucified upside down because he thought he wasn't deserving to be crucified like Jesus. Totally a metephor for.... oh wait why would someone do that? Oh I know he was god.
"Do you know 12 people prepared to endure hideous death for their belief in the appearance of Elvis" haha Atkins got totally chewed up in this debate, he doesnt even know anything about history
Objectivity, humility and a propensity toward honesty isn't Dr Atkins strong suits. He strikes me as the death before theism type, wandering through his final days with "something to believe in" despite the strong possibility that he's wrong.
At least Christ has given us, and especially the early church something worth dying for. They were all there and the church would not have grown had they known that the letters were false. Literally thousands willingly died because they could not deny the
@wnsbug I am a Christian and I thumbed your comment up because I wish Atheists would practice the same respect for our beliefs. You make a good point, Do onto others as you want others to do onto you.
@wnsbug I agree with you and add: ateism is bad when it attaks the freedom one has to believe in God and have a religion. In such case it´s as bad as a religious who attaks another religious just because he or she believes professes another religion.
@wnsbug You can only suggest he lost of you accept the lies he was told. Craig continually lies and he must know he is lying. There is no contemporary witness to Jesus' life. Paul's earliest writings were around 15 years fater Jesus' death and the earliest source for the gospels around 20 years later still. For Craig to sit there, having studied this in detail, and lie, distort and misrepresent the facts is reprehensible.
@wnsbug I am an atheist as of now, and do agree, thoroughly, that dr. Atkins failed to address most of his opponent's arguments appropriately. The sad thing is, that theists draw strength from it, rather than look for a better case for atheism.
@Bulasz Why do us theist have too look for a strong case for atheism. But we are looking to here as strong case for atheism in a form of debate. But Richard dawkins keep saying no against william lang craig... Why?
@stevelovesgod You don't have to do anything, but if you're searching for a truth, you should search for something confronting your beliefs, making you reconsider your position, rather than stop on videos such as this series - where atheism seems to be weak and insufficient. But I agree, that debate is the strongest possible tool to achieve that, although the debaters must be proper as well
Dunno, I don't like Dawkins and disagree with him on many points. He probably does it for publicity.
@Bulasz I did research and constructive criticism against Christianity. The actual doctrine and origin of it. I also read anti- christian books, such as gnostics, Misquoting Jesus, the quran, Studied hebrews, jews and other various beliefs. And it took a while, because each evidence you have, such as misquoting Jesus, I have to do textual criticism to see if the book is valid or not. And also, check the facts and claims of the book. And most people except a book as fact, which is flawed research
@Bulasz cont'd. So now Im at the point where I like to watch videos as this. Its funny, and entertaining. I like to see how each side defend there view. And see who's sounds logical.... And in the end, the truth pointing me back to Jesus Christ of nazareth. Trust me, it was a long long walk doing all that research. Because I was prepared to except Christianity as false. And a lot of information makes the claim of christianity as being false, like Zeitgeist and the da vinci code. But i researched
@Bulasz cont'd. So now Im at the point where I like to watch videos as this. Its funny, and entertaining. I like to see how each side defend there view. And see who's sounds logical.... And in the end, the truth pointing me back to Jesus Christ of nazareth. Trust me, it was a long long walk doing all that research. Because I was prepared to except Christianity as false. And a lot of information makes the claim of christianity as being false, like Zeitgeist and the da vinci code. But i researched
@Bulasz the information that they put out to see if what they are saying is true... A lot of the time its Misinformation, or a deliberate lie that people except as a fact without researching. So yeah, do your homework, and be un-bias where the TRUE evidence leads you. Seek and ye shall find.
@wnsbug Really? You used to think that this world WASN'T created in 6 days some 4000 years ago but you don't now? Good for you. Hope you live a full and fruitful life, following your interpretations of your REVEALED truths about moral behaviour and DON'T follow the writings of the Bible. It is FULL of misogynistic, homophobic intolerance and will result in you committing unethical atrocities on children, women and ANYONE who DOESN'T believe as you do.
2:15 If this guy is so big on evidence and proof, give us proof, actual physical proof that the authors of the NT did in fact make it all up, or, fudged the facts. The fact that he didn't know that Paul's letters were written so soon after the crucifixion shows just how little he actually has looked into the subject.
I wish the debate had been specifically about the resurrection of Jesus because Craig really would have destroyed Atkins. Not that he didn't pretty much give Atkins a bloody nose in this debate.
@tynytian Actually, that claim is false-positive: Yes, there's a letter claimed to be written by author Paul in the year-span between 3-11 a.d. The problem is, we already know that the author (Paul) were at times several different authors using the same pseudonym. Which means: No, we can not say that Paul wrote an account of Jesus' resurrection this soon. The earliest accounts are around year 70, and even these do NOT site references.
@tynytian you can't demand physical proof of a historical fact, because it cannot be re-done, and there wer no videocamaras on those times; its like asking for physical evidence that Hannibal crossed the alps on elephants. You only have to look for historic-legal proof of the occurrence of historical events, and in this field, the Bible is solidly supported.
On the other side, evolution has physical evidence, but is just a pile of bones religiously assumed and interpreted as "evolution"
That is a dreadful interpretation of the difference between history and science. First of all, you should acquaint yourself with the other forms of evidence for evolution- and the fact that they coroborate each other. Secondly, the reason non-believers take science more seriously than historical text is that science continuously makes predictions to check it's beliefs are correct. What prediction can you make that verifies the gospels account of jesus?
Atkins admits to the Gospels being written on or around 70AD but has held through this entire process that the accounts of Jesus's death cannot be accurate because the Gospels were written 70 or 80 years AFTER his death? WHAT!?! Jesus dies at 30 so that puts the Gospels at 40 years or so after Jesus's death which is WELL within one generations time to record the account! I think Atkins needs some help with basic math.
Jesus dies at 33 after being born around 4 B.C.?? but I see your point.
Paul's first letters are about 10 to 30 years after JC's death. The other Gospels I would say maybe A.D. 70 to 90. I don't know how Craig judges the text so I dunno either. =P
@AceofDlamonds why do you think Christianity is right and Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism etc, is wrong? The Bible clearly says, who doesn't believe in god is lost, does this mean, 4,5 billions of non-Christians (most of them have never heard of Jesus) are lost or sent to hell? Please help me to understand
What is ur point with this question? well I clearly see what ur trying to do. And Craig after hundreds of others have already given the answer,...
First,,give me the verse that says this, cause there are a related couple.
Second, it is written in Corinthians that those who hear the Gospel and respond are in salvation, while those who hear the Gospel and REJECT it are not.
@atheistfromaustria Hell is for people who openly reject God and Jesus, His son, after having heard the Gospel. Other people, those who have never heard of Jesus, are judged based on their reaction to general revelation, that is God revealing Himself through nature and inner conscience. If someone knows in their heart that they should be kind and loving, but instead behave selfishly and ruthlessly, they can still be sent to Hell even if they've never heard of Christ.
What Craig does best is he decorates his pure speculation up as a logical proof. The universe must have had a cause; natural laws cannot exist in a dimension with out space/time; god must transcend time/space and be the cause of the universe. Pure speculation no matter how many characteristics he wants to attribute to god. He makes these kinds of leaps from the unknown to God throughout all his arguments; Fallacy after Fallacy. But if you're not really listening, it sounds pretty logical.
William Lane Craig is good at manipulating people's minds. He is full of shit but he just confuses his opponents so badly that they can't respond back properly.
@supersmash43 Funny, the ancient Greeks said the same thing about Socrates. Frankly if a philosophical position can't even stand up against a little bullshit it might be worth reconsidering why its so great in the first place.
@HumanInDenial actually the God position isn't that good at all but Atkins does suck at debating. However, Craig is full of logical fallacies. He wins debates by giving his opponents so many logical fallacies that they can't debunk all of them.
@supersmash43 Well its not just enough to say that the God position isn't that good and that Craig's logic is full of fallacies, you have to point them out (Blerg I sound like my tutor, I'm looking this up so I can write a philosophy essay so right now I'm stuck in the argumentative bastard state of mind). Thing is Craig made all his points clear at the start of the debate and invited Atkins to point out any fallacies, which he failed at. But then again we do both agree that Aktins sucks so XP
@HumanInDenial I could make a video where I point out ALL of Craig's fallacies. Yes Atkin's claims may be more logically sound but he fails to defend his position very well. Also Craig is quite condensing because he is always trying to interrupt and is extremely arrogant (but so is Atkins but to a lesser degree) in his introduction and ending speeches. Like I said Craig makes so many fallacies that Atkins or anybody could not refute all of them in the time given.
@supersmash43 This is how I understood the structure of the debate. Craig made points A, B and C and asked Atkins to challenge them. Instead Atkins asked Craig to disprove point X. Craig pointed out that even if he couldn't it wouldn't disprove his points, that at best we'd be left with agnosticism. Atkins didn't really have anything to say to that and kept going, that doesn't sound like Craig being manipulative, it just sounds like Atkins not addressing the issues.
@supersmash43 He's a good orator, regardless of beliefs they're inherently manipulative XP My issue is people keep saying he's automatically wrong and that he's obviously a glorified conman whose every other phrase is a blasphemy against logic (okay now I'm exaggerating but still) without explaining why, even once. Maybe its a sign of my intellectual poverty but even as an agnostic who doesn't agree I'm not seeing that. But maybe that would have been clearer if Atkins had actually challenged him
@HumanInDenial never said everything he says is a lie. However, he makes quite a few logical fallacies like saying science is circular and math cannot prove itself. Math and science are proven by observations of the natural world and axioms. God doesn't follow any such characteristics. And when we get into Christianity it is an obvious hoax when we look into the history of it. Same goes for Islam.
@supersmash43 Actually what he said is that science can't prove mathematics and reason exists because science presupposes them, which was just a response to being told that science could prove everything. Also his first point in the debate was that the existence of God is an axiom, he claimed it was necessary for there to be something that had all the characteristics of a God in order for the natural world as we observe it to exist. And history isn't my thing, we won't get very far if I go there
@HumanInDenial mathematics is the most rigid and fundamental form of logic. Of course, if his God is omnipotent He should be able to change basic mathematics truths like 1+1=3. We know the Judeo-Christian God is derived from the Jewish polytheist pantheon (but at some time in history the Jews rejected all the other Gods and started to worship ONLY the one God known as Yahweh).
@supersmash43 I'm not refuting this, mathematics as a system is pretty damned air tight and the history of christianity is just as grey, uncertain, confused and suspect as the history of everything else. I'm as unpersuaded by Christianity as I am any other religion (or atheism for that matter) and I'd be surprised if this debate changed that, but what I'm trying to show is that Craig isn't just an eloquent strawman and that a lot of the criticism he's being shown here is misplaced.
@HumanInDenial he still strawmans and uses appeal to emotion a lot. Maybe not in this debate but in it is very obvious in some of his other presentations. Atheism isn't a religion btw.
@supersmash43 Well I haven't seen his other debates so I guess I can't argue with that. And sorry about that last part, I wasn't trying to imply that (it's why I put it in brackets to separate it from the part about religions). I'm just saying that for this debate in particular the criticism seems vague, harsh and unwarranted, but who knows maybe I'd change my mind if I watched more of his debates.
Atkins says that the fisherman "joined in for the notoriety". If they joined in for that purpose, and then things changed that they could be killed for it, don't you think they would have changed their minds? They died horrible, gruesome deaths for their unwillingness to deny that Jesus Chrisy died and rose again. Atkins continues to look for things that just aren't logical or reasonable.
Given that there have been thousands of holy books written in human history. And that most of them contradict each other, I think the use of Occam's Razor (which isn't actually a rule, just a general guideline) would lead us to conclude THEY WERE WRONG.
I'm not really interested if they were written the day after. A book is not sufficient evidence to convince a rational person that a miracle occurred.
Does it make a difference? We can't accurately know what happened yesterday when the events were witnessed by thousands, they will all provide a differing account. Add 5 years of rumours and distortion and it might as well be 80 years later. And in either case it's only a piece of fiction, if you believe it isn't then find a way to prove it's divinity. Self proclomation isn't evidence.
@octobrick81 craig is wrong - i've never heard of paul being 5 years after jesus - it's closer to about 20 or 30... he did his homework - the last, john wrote his 80 - 100 years afterward
He wasn't saying Paul was 5 years after Jesus. He was referring to the early creedal formula cited in 1st Corinthians 15. It's that creedal formula which virtually all scholars accept today as being dated within 5 years of Jesus' crucifixion.
It seems a great many people leaving comments see this as a victory for Craig. This is an argument that has been raging since human beings could articulate arguments and had Craig really proven the existence of God (as some on here suggest) he would be the not only most important scholar in history but the most important human being as well. He isn't.
The most important human being ever was Jesus Christ. He came and died for our sins after leading a perfect life. Jesus WAS GOD as well yet the people of His time STILL DENIED GOD!!! Everyone nowadays says that if they could only have "proof" of God's existence yet the evidence is everywhere.
Atkins is kinda right. Germans attacked Poland out of boredom, too. There was just nothing to do! No videogames, no youtube... what a sad time it was. XD
He does not have any notable studies in religion, New Testament studies, philosophy, or anything else. He's only a notable physical chemist. That clearly shows in this debate.
@Nickcloudy i know a guy who is a computer engineer and he's absolutely brilliant at arguing the historicity of jesus.. it comes down to how interested you are in the topic.
"so they invented the resurrection of Jesus because they were bored" oh man Atkins, throw in your towel... please this is painful... ring the bell. please someone ring the bell.
Atkins- "I don't remember writing that." oh my goodness. get your head up man.
it comes down to whether you will accept a simpler explanation.. IE, Atkins
Philosophers and scientist should never debate. Their mindsets are totally different, the philosopher just requires a good argument whereas the scientist requires proof.
Likewise the bible can't be used as proof of anything.
@huntmatuk If there is no god then the bible is just a fairy tale based in historical places. But if there is a God and if "with God nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:37) then the virgin birth, the resurrection, the assumption into Heaven, the sudden conversion of St. Paul, parting the red sea and other miracles are possible. And also Hell is possible. But what is it to me if you start to believe or not. Unless you embrace the Universal faith you're lost anyways.
@defgill As I said before, the bible is just a book, no more no less. If you want to use it as proof then you have to have other documentation which also corroborates the same facts. I understand that a lot of the new testament was written decades after the even happened.
@huntmatuk bible was written by different authors, within the 1st generation of when it happened so that it could be verified. So there are different documents that collaborate with each other, that's why they are considered authentic. If there were other similar documents, then they too would have been atleast accepted somehow, and in fact there is. The didache is as early as 70AD or earlier. Antichristian Jews Pilo (died40AD) and Historian Josephus (died94AD) reference jesus and Christianity.
They collaborate with each other because they copy each other. This is what scholarship produces: Mark was written between 65-70 AD, while Luke and Matthew were first written ten years later or so. The authors of Luke and Matthew had Mark at their disposal and plagiarized parts verbatim. The same is probable of John. You don't have 4 independent sources; you have one.
Indisputable fact: we do not have any contemporary accounts of Jesus' life.
@Nickcloudy One thing you fail to realize is that, for the sake of argument let's say Matthew and Luke did plagiarize Mark, Matthew and Luke were disciples of the Church and of the Apostales. So if they did copy parts of Mark, it's because they had no reason NOT to disagree with the text. Rather it just complements with the rest of Luke's and Matthew's testimony about the Life of Christ. But nonetheless, they are 4 distinct testimonies about Christ which all agree with each other. God Bless...
The authors of Matthew and Luke were not contemporary. - You're right, they didn't have any reason to disagree with the text. That's because they weren't witnesses. They did, however, disagree with each other on numerous occasions. How many women were at the tomb? Did Jesus die before or after the Passover meal was written? Did Jesus carry his cross?
I don't think you understand the need for contemporary non-collaborative texts and sources. The gospels just aren't these.
The apostles weren't "twelve simple fishermen." Four were fishermen. One was a tax collector. Luke, writing under the direction of Paul, was a doctor and very intelligent. Paul was a Pharisee who knew the Old Testament inside and out, and might have even memorized it, since they would memorize large portions of Scripture. We don't know what all the others did before Christ called them, but just from these few, they weren't "twelve simple fishermen." [Note: Luke wasn't an apostle.]
Lol... Jesus was BORN about 3AD Jesus didn't die when he was a baby... Lol So Mr Atkins assumption that the Bible was 70 years after the event is a lack of understanding.
Mr Atkins has NO IDEA.... But yet despite his complete lack of knowlege he plows through saying he is logical etc...lol.. What a joke..lol
His (Atkins) statement that when someone believed in God and/or Jesus has wasted his live is just extremely judgemental. Like religious persons don't attribute to society. What an arrogant little man.
"The point he is making is that it is absurd to think anyone rises from the dead - any explanation is more simple than the re-invigoration of cells from death to life, including boredom."
Wrong. It is absurd to think that people can resurrect *naturally* from the dead. The claim is that Jesus was *supernaturally* resurrected. Hence the miracle is entirely dependent upon the existence of God, which is what the debate's all about, and "boredom" lacks explanatory scope and power.
wowowowowow..haahhahahaa thats hilrioaus i think imma make up a complex story to endanger my life. Akins is ingorant to say that those guys were bored. Who is man to judge a man when you don't even know them.
The causes Atkins gives are plausible, but not confirmed, this still doesn't give the answers required to the debate, rather faith in a cause, and that's what Christianity is about, faith, so it would rather damage his argument than support it. One chooses to believe without 100% proof. Faith.
MrLinkinparkrules 1 week ago
Oh, and CSI 36AD is a pretty shaky foundation for any argument, no matter how much of an expert you are.
OSTube1 2 weeks ago
LOL @ 1:10 ! Yes, Craig, they could have been bored. You can laugh but at least it's not an explanation that requires a supernatural cause. Atkins looks for the plausible, possible and NATURAL causes first. Unless those are ruled out completely, there is no need for a SUPERNATURAL explanation, which is by its very definition far more outlandish and farfetched.
OSTube1 2 weeks ago
A simple refutation of Craig is the conspiracy theory argument: If someone claims that the twin towers were bombed by CIA agents, then it is impossible to refute because whenever a claim is made in defense of the accepted dogma, it is asserted that 'that's what they want you to think'. when the Stoics claimed that nothing could be proven objectively - greek scholars crushed this argument by saying that they had to be skeptical of their own skepticism, and skeptical of the skepticism of ..etc
fasteddief 3 weeks ago
it is believable that love is possibly genetically evolved to provide the best chance for offspring to survive. this is why babies express neoteny. cuteness that is attractive, because prehistorically, babies who were not cute probably did not survive at as high a rate as babies who were ugly. a man who would die for his child had more of his genes passed on than a man who would let his child die. then that surviving child would also have the "die for my child" genes.
clembashing 3 months ago
it sounds as if jesus was thinking "yeah, when i rise from the dead, i'm going to heal my body. but i'll still need proof that i'm jesus, so i guess i'll leave a couple wounds in my hands unhealed." also, jesus was thinking "i'm going to give my disciples physicial evidence, but will only save the souls of people who have true faith without seeing the physical evidence."
clembashing 3 months ago
what's the simpler explanation? 1. the disciples were lying. 2. a man who actually was killed rose from the dead.
i believe that #1 is the much simpler explanation. the disciples wanted proof that the man they were speaking to was actually the man that was crucified. but wouldn't they know from all his wounds and cuts on his face and body and arms? no, because jesus was completely healed when he rose from the dead EXCEPT the piercings in his hands. this strikes me as arbitrary.
clembashing 3 months ago
@clembashing problem with this theory is: 1) the jews did NOT believe in a dying and rising savior, they were expecting a earthly leader like King David. after He died, they were scared and ran to hide! after He was arrested they fled! 2) people DONT die for a KNOWN lie (if you can please cite me and example i would be grateful) 3) they were going back to their old lives which would have been quite simple for most of them, then the switched on a dime and chose torture, jail and death. cont...
freeze32007 2 months ago in playlist William L Craig vs Peter Atkins
@freeze32007 yet he was denied three time by his disciple? man, if i saw the son of god and he was miraculous, i don't think i'd deny him a single time. the son of god could bring me back from the dead, heal the world in one second, and give me eternal life for what i did on twenty years on earth. why would you deny him? well, if you are retarded, or don't believe in god, then you would deny him.
clembashing 2 months ago
@clembashing pump ur breakes bro, peter denied Him BEFORE He rose from the dead. remember, they did not believe in a dying and rising God. when he saw Him arrested and beaten they thought it was all over. it was the resurrection that changed everything. and just like you said you would do if you saw the son of God so did they AFTER the resurrection. thus, providing very strong evidence FOR the resurrection. my point from the beginning.
freeze32007 2 months ago
@freeze32007 you said "people don't die for a known lie." Yet people of many religions have died for their religion. for example, muslims die for islam, and catholics die for catholicism. but, if you believe that these religions are lies, and that they are false, just like christians believe that islam is a lie, then, if you are a christian, you yourself believe that some people have died for a known lie (these people being martyrs of other religions).
clembashing 2 months ago
@clembashing key word KNOWN lie. they BELIEVE it is true. this is not what happened in the case of the apostles. if they KNEW what happened to Jesus and were lying about hiding his body, the first time a whip hit their back, or the first time a stone hit their body they would have stopped LYING. as for muslims n other religions, you can BELIEVE a lie to be true and be sincere about it. those guys doin suicide bombings ect are true to the core believers in what they think is true.
freeze32007 2 months ago
@freeze32007 i understand your point. but, still, the gospels seem to have been written decades after the resurrection, which seems a little weird, as if they were written with a new agenda. also, peter didn't deny jesus after the resurrection, but didn't he witness many miracles, healing people, and raising them from the dead, and feeding thousands with something like 5 loaves of bread? it seems like these miracles didn't impress peter at all.
clembashing 2 months ago
@freeze32007 also... it seems that maybe walking on water is a story about not having to be afraid when you believe in god. it seems odd that peter would deny god after he saw this miracle, unless it was a metaphor. it also seems odd that judas would betray god for some cash, like a badly written one-dimensional character. maybe he thought jesus could escape from any prison on earth, since he could just instantly go to the other side of the earth, or morph into a woman or child.
clembashing 2 months ago
@clembashing peter was a very impulsive man. he even tried to kill a man right in front of Jesus! (john 18:10) he made mistakes just like we all do. but that has nothing to do with the fact they all died holding on to what they truly believed to be true, Jesus rose from the grave, not a lie .. they gained NOTHING and lost EVERYTHING. as for the gospels being written decades later, i urge you to watch this playlist
watch?v=bVPm2v0sRLc&list=PL6559BB51D35E44FF&feature=plpp_play_all
freeze32007 1 month ago
@clembashing so, if they were lying, you MUST account for where the whole idea of a rising savior came from (no horus, krishna, mirthra ect did NOT provide this) you MUST account why at least one hundred and twenty Jews (there were 12 disciples, but there were hundreds of other believers) would lie about a MAN being God and be willing to b tortured and killed for this lie. to gain NOTHING and lose EVERYTHING. THAT is much more complicated
freeze32007 2 months ago in playlist William L Craig vs Peter Atkins
@freeze32007 why 120 jews? why not the world? why didn't jesus heal the entire world or raise everyone from the dead? he is god, he can do that. it's because that would not be believable. there would be evidence that no one in australia was healed, or no one in russia raised from the dead. but raising one man or healing one cripple is more believable and you can lie about it. why walk on water? to impress people? would god want to be like "hey look! i can do miracles! does it impress you?"
clembashing 2 months ago
@clembashing i would not need proof that it was jesus, if he really rose from dead. he'd have scars and wounds all over his body, i'd see him and be like "damn, you rose from the dead." But that's not how it happened in the bible. Jesus was completely healed, and changed his face, because the disciples didn't recognize him. Jesus selectively left his hands unhealed, so he could "prove" to people that it was really him. Jesus is god, but he's so weird, like he's trying really hard to prove it.
clembashing 2 months ago
@clembashing why 120 jews? that was just what is recorded in the bible as being in the room during a meeting after His death. we dont know the total num of believers. we know that there were 3000 in one day who believed. Jesus didnt just go around raising everyone from the dead lol i think you are a little misinformed. He performed the necessary miracles to prove who He was and allow for a choice at the same time. i dont have the mind of God to say WHY he did everything the way he did tho. do u?
freeze32007 2 months ago
@freeze32007 i guess it's possible, but i find it somewhat random that God would walk on water to impress people and give me a choice to believe or not believe. and for someone who actually witnessed God to deny him three times. if i personally witnessed God, i would never deny him, since i'd have eternal life. i also find it strange to punish someone for eternity for what they did in 80 years on earth. a trillion years is nothing compared to eternity. every religion believes in weird things.
clembashing 2 months ago
@clembashing just because u find it weird doesnt make it false.n u say u would nvr deny Him bt u dnt knw until ur in those shoes.n another thing, the MORE u are exposed 2 God,the more accountability u hv.u say u wnt God 2 come dwn n say HERE I AM BELIEVE! well,tht wld make u even MORE accountable for your sins n give u less "wiggle room".the Israelites in the desert for exmple were punished for COMPLAINING 2much cuz they hd so much exposure to God they were w/o excuse. PM me n we can tlk more.
freeze32007 2 months ago
@clembashing - You make total sense and don't sound as crazy as everyone else on this page probably thinks!
But all of us - sane, crazy (I mean mixed sanities) can agree that not only did atkins waste his superior Craig's time, but wasted all of our time, and has been doing so since 1998, right? I mean were the smart atheists busy that night so they called this hack to sit in?
mollkatless 2 months ago
@mollkatless
You're kidding right? Atkins is a Professor of Chemistry at Oxford, they wouldn't even let Craig in there to clean the floors.
Don't confuse rhetorical tap dancing with depth of knowledge. Craig is a hack, people of serious intellect laugh at his bunkum.
MrGunwitch 1 month ago
@MrGunwitch care to share any of his bunkum? any thing you can point out that is false? can you prove him wrong? none of the others seem to have been successful. id LOVE to hear some ACTUAL "bunkum" if you can point any out. thank you. God bless
freeze32007 1 month ago
@MrGunwitch here WLC at Oxford debating with 3 of OXFORDS philosophers. enjoy. ill be waiting for you to prove him wrong somewhere the 3 professional philosophers could not.
watch?v=fP9CwDTRoOE
freeze32007 1 month ago
@freeze32007
Thanks for sending me the video, let me have a look and I'll get back to you.
MrGunwitch 1 month ago
@MrGunwitch koo merry Christmas n God bless
freeze32007 1 month ago
@MrGunwitch - so using all of your ability to discern (every bit of it now) who won the debate? In this clip does atkins appear in control of his facial ticks?
let's see here, these atheists have praised WLC - hitchens (rip), harris, denett, have all referred to him as a strong adversary, but you, an annonymous atheist beleive they are wrong, and he is a "hack" is that your judgement? is this an example of your ciritcal thinking capabilities?
mollkatless 1 month ago
@mollkatless
Don't confuse oratory skill with substance. Craig can speak well, but he's talking about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Oh, and who said I was an atheist?
MrGunwitch 1 month ago
@MrGunwitch - okay, lets just focus on the basics: who won the debate? do you say the atheists I mentioned are confused about debate skills and oratory skills? each has said he is a strong debater, you see clearly and the rest of us are all confused?
I guess I can see why you are so impressed with atkins, he also manages to say nothing of signifcance, only he did it for much longer than you so far. Incidentally, I think he got into oxford because his father was an alumnist
mollkatless 1 month ago
@mollkatless
Atkins clearly wins because Craig is talking complete rubbish. Rubbish spoken well is just well-spoken rubbish.
Typical hare-brained comment from a youtube weekend warrior...do you really think Atkins could hold down a professorship at Oxford, (in chemistry no doubt), just through nepotism? Do you have any conception of how incredibly demanding that role would be? Of course you'd need to be a college grad to have even a slight hope of answering that question...
MrGunwitch 1 month ago
@MrGunwitch I really think you are wasting your time arguing with this person. I have NEVER seen such a one sided debate in all my life and it is pure folly anyone who wishes to say that Atkins even had a leg to stand on throughout this debate. Craig is revolutionary I believe. I have major difficulties with a lot of aspects of the church but I believe a lot of people can learn from this man. He will never get the publicity with the way the media is inclined today.
211bEanS112 3 weeks ago
@211bEanS112
Revolutionary only in the extent and breadth of his utter stupidity...he is the poster boy for indoctrination
MrGunwitch 2 weeks ago
@MrGunwitch HAHA the cheek of morons like you. It's one thing to try critically analyse rationally what they are saying but to call a genius like that with twice as high an IQ as you stupid...I need not even say. And "indoctrination"? In what religious text is any of his scientific deductions? IDIOT haha
211bEanS112 2 weeks ago
@211bEanS112
Just the kind of erudition one would expect from an admirer of WLC.
Add your IQ to WLC's, double it, and you are approaching me peon
MrGunwitch 2 weeks ago
love when people say "they wrote about it 50 year after his death" how do we know that? they could've written tons of stuff that got away during these 50 years.
I mean, that goes for ALL writings done during the ancient roman period.
To say, what we have left is the proof of what only was written is ridiculous.
quezcatol 3 months ago
ROFL atkins defense against the credibility of the NT is by saying that the apostles are stupid? all he has is namecalling to try and prove a point xD
Falcondick69 3 months ago
more it goes to the end of the debate, atkins shows how much in common he has with a clown, than with a ... whatever he says he is. apostoles died because of boredom? i never heard such mockery and superficiality before. this man is a joke.
CumSeNumesteMelodia 4 months ago
Atkins face at 1:39. He knows he's losing. At that point he's running on his need to beat Craig.
daS3R10US 5 months ago
pointless
straty01 6 months ago
Why is Atkins going off on the NT text? Clearly he has little to no knowledge of the historical cannon of the Bible
REDRAGON12345 6 months ago
LOL @ 1:21
Atkins is a moron!
LOL
Everybody is laughing at him, sheesh!
AzBirdDog 6 months ago
Furthermore the whole jesus myth is just a plagiarisation of other 'religions' of that time and age.
1878EFC2008 7 months ago
@1878EFC2008 That's one of the most ignorant comments I've seen...hilarious.
beto88keys 6 months ago
Why is hallucination implausible?
there are many muslims with similar hallucinations, but they never see jesus or mary, hindus have similar hallucinations, so do sikhs and buddhists... are ALL the world's religions correct.
this man is an idiot who's default setting is speciousness and hokum masquerading as intellectual thought.
1878EFC2008 7 months ago
@1878EFC2008 hallucinations of 70 people simultaneously plausible? Please...Is there a scientific precedent for such an event? that is why it's implausible!!!
beto88keys 6 months ago
@beto88keys
You ever seen Derren Brown pretending to be a preacher. Plenty of people experienced what could be described as a hallucination. Is Derren Brown the second coming of Christ?
Also, how do we know all these people even had the hallucination anyway?
You have to explain away the fact that votaries of all the other faiths have experienced similar delusions....
1878EFC2008 6 months ago
@beto88keys Actually, that is quite common. In fact, it's easier for a magician (or a "reader") to preform their tricks in a crowd. Why? Because we are like sheep. Religious as well as atheists. Though, the claim should be that on this point religious are gullible.
Ryoroyzu 5 months ago
Always funny to see religious people get destroyed.
1878EFC2008 7 months ago
@1878EFC2008 I didn't know Atkins was religious...oh wait...I see what you meant with your comment. What I saw was Atkins resorting to a series of awkward arguments that did not make any sense.
beto88keys 6 months ago
@beto88keys
You must've watched a different video.
1878EFC2008 6 months ago
The bible was not written in Greek.... What language was the bible revealed in?
DiLxThief 7 months ago
@DiLxThief The language that dominated the region at the time after Jesus' death WAS Greek. The OLD TESTAMENT was written in Hebrew.
erickinho1BRA 7 months ago
@erickinho1BRA My friend, the question was not "which language dominated the region after Jesus' death"... the Question was, what language was the Bible written in. Now i know Jesus' first language was Aramaic, so the NT couldn't have been written in Greek 1st time...
DiLxThief 7 months ago
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I feel so sorry for Atkins! xD Hope he doesn't get owned 20 times over next time they debate this year...
thetraceur123 8 months ago
What is this? Atkins resorting to conspiracy theory made by fishermen than historical accounts and reconstructed and translated texts. Has he ever even heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls at least?
emmthreejonny 8 months ago
The ressurection of jesus was a hoax...oh and his divinity was then voted on by cardinals :) thats a fact....why did we have to vote about his divinity ?
twoface4 9 months ago
@twoface4 so that the catholics could steal his image and slander it for money and power.
musicoutsidethebox 8 months ago
@twoface4 btw jesus wasnt catholic.
musicoutsidethebox 8 months ago
@twoface4 they voted alright, but Jesus said it himself and didn't need their vote more than Galileo needed the church's vote to say the Earth revolved around the sun. READ THE BIBLE yourself, he clearly states to be God.
beto88keys 6 months ago
Poor WCL, hes so deluded. He thinks that the fact that 12 Jews were willing to give their lives for an alien belief is PROOF of the Resurection and validates Christianity!!! I suppose that means that several Arab men living in the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century, which was predominately pagan, were willing to die for a prophet who espoused a monotheistic god means ISLAM IS TRUE!!! Fucking great logic huh?
123duffbeerrules 9 months ago
@123duffbeerrules He's not, you are. He thinks that the fact that 12 Jews were willing to give their lives for an alien belief is PROOF of THEIR SINCERITY.
bob0124 9 months ago
@bob0124
Yeah? So lets see. By your brilliant logic the fact that HUNDREDS of Muhammed's companions giving their lives is PROOF of THEIR SINCERITY. And thus PROOF for Islam? Let me guess, "no". Please just shh.
123duffbeerrules 9 months ago
@123duffbeerrules Dying (and being tortured to death) for a belief does not validate it. It only shows that the believer is sincere. Liars make poor martyrs. The disciples had to know the truth , they either saw the risen Christ or they did not (key point). If it's all lies why would they go perpetuate such unprofitable lie, and suffer persecution, imprisonment, torture, and death?
bob0124 9 months ago
@bob0124 "Hundreds of Muhammad's companions giving their lives" yeah giving their lives in battle and declaring Holy War on the unbelievers.
But for the sake of the argument let's just say that there were companions persecuted and killed for their beliefs. In that case they surely are sincere , but they weren't witnesses (key point) to an event that would authenticate their message i.e. the resurrection of Muhammad or any of that sort. nor they preached that any such event took place.
bob0124 9 months ago
@bob0124
Are you not listening or are you simply so deluded that you refuse to? There are NUMEROUS religions where followers are willing to go through unspeakable pain for their 'faith', the fact that Christians did so doesn't mean that the "Christ rose" (keep in mind retard, no one actually SAW him rise) anymore then Muslims dying for their cause validates Muhammed rising from Jerusalem in the Dome of the Rock. Now just keep your mouth shut.
123duffbeerrules 9 months ago
@123duffbeerrules "Dying for a belief does not validate it, It only shows that the believer is sincere" I actually said that, only if YOU listen, or are you simply so deluded that you refuse to?
I never said or meant Christians (in general) dying for their beliefs, I said DISCIPLES. Because the disciples KNEW whether or not what they were professing was true. They proclaimed His death and resurrection and willfully endured prolonged torture and death rather than repudiate their testimony
bob0124 9 months ago
@bob0124 The fact that you compare Muhammad's ascension to heaven and the resurrection of Jesus shows how ignorant you are and how you didn't understand a single word of what I said.
Muhammad's supposed ascension was at night with no witnesses to testify. No one believed in Islam because of it. Actually some people went APOSTATE because of it, yes they abandoned Islam when Muhammad told them of it - Tafsir Ebn Kathir, El Tabari, El Kortobi of Surah 17 ( tafsir = commentary)
bob0124 9 months ago
@bob0124
There commitment to a metaphor is quite astounding. I hope to one day create a grand metephor and die from horrible torture just so that the metephore can live on for thousands of years.
Ya people really must be committed to a metephore to be willing to die horrible horrible deaths. I mean peter asked to be crucified upside down because he thought he wasn't deserving to be crucified like Jesus. Totally a metephor for.... oh wait why would someone do that? Oh I know he was god.
derth4 7 months ago
"Do you know 12 people prepared to endure hideous death for their belief in the appearance of Elvis" haha Atkins got totally chewed up in this debate, he doesnt even know anything about history
relarerfhjk 10 months ago 2
This man professing to be wise, looks stupid.
psalmistjohn 11 months ago
"But they were simple minded people". That's really arrogant. Matthew was a tax collector. You needed some degree of intelligence to do that.
ukchristian28 11 months ago
I'm surprised Peter Atkins dares to be seen in public after this debate
happysappy21 11 months ago
Objectivity, humility and a propensity toward honesty isn't Dr Atkins strong suits. He strikes me as the death before theism type, wandering through his final days with "something to believe in" despite the strong possibility that he's wrong.
At least Christ has given us, and especially the early church something worth dying for. They were all there and the church would not have grown had they known that the letters were false. Literally thousands willingly died because they could not deny the
lederereddy 11 months ago
Paul was a simple minded person ? Poor Atkins.
afortaleza 11 months ago
i can imagine myself in the shoes of an atheist, because i was one myself before.
I think it's fair to say that Atkins lost this one.. fair and square
Doesn't mean Atheism is to be taken lightly, there are very intelligent atheists out there, and it's their beliefs so we have to respect that
wnsbug 1 year ago 35
@wnsbug I am a Christian and I thumbed your comment up because I wish Atheists would practice the same respect for our beliefs. You make a good point, Do onto others as you want others to do onto you.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
@wnsbug I agree with you and add: ateism is bad when it attaks the freedom one has to believe in God and have a religion. In such case it´s as bad as a religious who attaks another religious just because he or she believes professes another religion.
jefersontorres 7 months ago
@wnsbug You can only suggest he lost of you accept the lies he was told. Craig continually lies and he must know he is lying. There is no contemporary witness to Jesus' life. Paul's earliest writings were around 15 years fater Jesus' death and the earliest source for the gospels around 20 years later still. For Craig to sit there, having studied this in detail, and lie, distort and misrepresent the facts is reprehensible.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@wnsbug I am an atheist as of now, and do agree, thoroughly, that dr. Atkins failed to address most of his opponent's arguments appropriately. The sad thing is, that theists draw strength from it, rather than look for a better case for atheism.
Bulasz 4 months ago in playlist Current
@Bulasz Why do us theist have too look for a strong case for atheism. But we are looking to here as strong case for atheism in a form of debate. But Richard dawkins keep saying no against william lang craig... Why?
stevelovesgod 4 months ago
@stevelovesgod You don't have to do anything, but if you're searching for a truth, you should search for something confronting your beliefs, making you reconsider your position, rather than stop on videos such as this series - where atheism seems to be weak and insufficient. But I agree, that debate is the strongest possible tool to achieve that, although the debaters must be proper as well
Dunno, I don't like Dawkins and disagree with him on many points. He probably does it for publicity.
Bulasz 4 months ago
@Bulasz I did research and constructive criticism against Christianity. The actual doctrine and origin of it. I also read anti- christian books, such as gnostics, Misquoting Jesus, the quran, Studied hebrews, jews and other various beliefs. And it took a while, because each evidence you have, such as misquoting Jesus, I have to do textual criticism to see if the book is valid or not. And also, check the facts and claims of the book. And most people except a book as fact, which is flawed research
stevelovesgod 4 months ago
@Bulasz cont'd. So now Im at the point where I like to watch videos as this. Its funny, and entertaining. I like to see how each side defend there view. And see who's sounds logical.... And in the end, the truth pointing me back to Jesus Christ of nazareth. Trust me, it was a long long walk doing all that research. Because I was prepared to except Christianity as false. And a lot of information makes the claim of christianity as being false, like Zeitgeist and the da vinci code. But i researched
stevelovesgod 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bulasz cont'd. So now Im at the point where I like to watch videos as this. Its funny, and entertaining. I like to see how each side defend there view. And see who's sounds logical.... And in the end, the truth pointing me back to Jesus Christ of nazareth. Trust me, it was a long long walk doing all that research. Because I was prepared to except Christianity as false. And a lot of information makes the claim of christianity as being false, like Zeitgeist and the da vinci code. But i researched
stevelovesgod 4 months ago
@Bulasz the information that they put out to see if what they are saying is true... A lot of the time its Misinformation, or a deliberate lie that people except as a fact without researching. So yeah, do your homework, and be un-bias where the TRUE evidence leads you. Seek and ye shall find.
stevelovesgod 4 months ago
@wnsbug Really? You used to think that this world WASN'T created in 6 days some 4000 years ago but you don't now? Good for you. Hope you live a full and fruitful life, following your interpretations of your REVEALED truths about moral behaviour and DON'T follow the writings of the Bible. It is FULL of misogynistic, homophobic intolerance and will result in you committing unethical atrocities on children, women and ANYONE who DOESN'T believe as you do.
nahyoudontgetit 2 months ago
2:15 If this guy is so big on evidence and proof, give us proof, actual physical proof that the authors of the NT did in fact make it all up, or, fudged the facts. The fact that he didn't know that Paul's letters were written so soon after the crucifixion shows just how little he actually has looked into the subject.
tynytian 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
ukchristian28 11 months ago
Comment removed
ukchristian28 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tynytian
I wish the debate had been specifically about the resurrection of Jesus because Craig really would have destroyed Atkins. Not that he didn't pretty much give Atkins a bloody nose in this debate.
ukchristian28 11 months ago
@tynytian Actually, that claim is false-positive: Yes, there's a letter claimed to be written by author Paul in the year-span between 3-11 a.d. The problem is, we already know that the author (Paul) were at times several different authors using the same pseudonym. Which means: No, we can not say that Paul wrote an account of Jesus' resurrection this soon. The earliest accounts are around year 70, and even these do NOT site references.
Ryoroyzu 5 months ago
@tynytian you can't demand physical proof of a historical fact, because it cannot be re-done, and there wer no videocamaras on those times; its like asking for physical evidence that Hannibal crossed the alps on elephants. You only have to look for historic-legal proof of the occurrence of historical events, and in this field, the Bible is solidly supported.
On the other side, evolution has physical evidence, but is just a pile of bones religiously assumed and interpreted as "evolution"
Mvillano13 4 months ago
@Mvillano13
That is a dreadful interpretation of the difference between history and science. First of all, you should acquaint yourself with the other forms of evidence for evolution- and the fact that they coroborate each other. Secondly, the reason non-believers take science more seriously than historical text is that science continuously makes predictions to check it's beliefs are correct. What prediction can you make that verifies the gospels account of jesus?
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@tynytian He's arguing for atheism, but he's painting the picture of agnosticism.
catobates 3 months ago
watch out now people, its video 9/11
eagleeye2102 1 year ago
Atkins admits to the Gospels being written on or around 70AD but has held through this entire process that the accounts of Jesus's death cannot be accurate because the Gospels were written 70 or 80 years AFTER his death? WHAT!?! Jesus dies at 30 so that puts the Gospels at 40 years or so after Jesus's death which is WELL within one generations time to record the account! I think Atkins needs some help with basic math.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions
Jesus dies at 33 after being born around 4 B.C.?? but I see your point.
Paul's first letters are about 10 to 30 years after JC's death. The other Gospels I would say maybe A.D. 70 to 90. I don't know how Craig judges the text so I dunno either. =P
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
@AceofDlamonds why do you think Christianity is right and Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism etc, is wrong? The Bible clearly says, who doesn't believe in god is lost, does this mean, 4,5 billions of non-Christians (most of them have never heard of Jesus) are lost or sent to hell? Please help me to understand
atheistfromaustria 1 year ago
@atheistfromaustria
What is ur point with this question? well I clearly see what ur trying to do. And Craig after hundreds of others have already given the answer,...
First,,give me the verse that says this, cause there are a related couple.
Second, it is written in Corinthians that those who hear the Gospel and respond are in salvation, while those who hear the Gospel and REJECT it are not.
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
@atheistfromaustria Hell is for people who openly reject God and Jesus, His son, after having heard the Gospel. Other people, those who have never heard of Jesus, are judged based on their reaction to general revelation, that is God revealing Himself through nature and inner conscience. If someone knows in their heart that they should be kind and loving, but instead behave selfishly and ruthlessly, they can still be sent to Hell even if they've never heard of Christ.
tynytian 11 months ago
its painful to watch atkins debate : (
moxito1 1 year ago
What Craig does best is he decorates his pure speculation up as a logical proof. The universe must have had a cause; natural laws cannot exist in a dimension with out space/time; god must transcend time/space and be the cause of the universe. Pure speculation no matter how many characteristics he wants to attribute to god. He makes these kinds of leaps from the unknown to God throughout all his arguments; Fallacy after Fallacy. But if you're not really listening, it sounds pretty logical.
l1a2b 1 year ago
William Lane Craig is good at manipulating people's minds. He is full of shit but he just confuses his opponents so badly that they can't respond back properly.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43 Funny, the ancient Greeks said the same thing about Socrates. Frankly if a philosophical position can't even stand up against a little bullshit it might be worth reconsidering why its so great in the first place.
HumanInDenial 1 year ago
@HumanInDenial what position are you talking about?
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43 The ones held by Craig's opponents, such at Atkins.
HumanInDenial 1 year ago
@HumanInDenial actually the God position isn't that good at all but Atkins does suck at debating. However, Craig is full of logical fallacies. He wins debates by giving his opponents so many logical fallacies that they can't debunk all of them.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43 Well its not just enough to say that the God position isn't that good and that Craig's logic is full of fallacies, you have to point them out (Blerg I sound like my tutor, I'm looking this up so I can write a philosophy essay so right now I'm stuck in the argumentative bastard state of mind). Thing is Craig made all his points clear at the start of the debate and invited Atkins to point out any fallacies, which he failed at. But then again we do both agree that Aktins sucks so XP
HumanInDenial 1 year ago
@HumanInDenial I could make a video where I point out ALL of Craig's fallacies. Yes Atkin's claims may be more logically sound but he fails to defend his position very well. Also Craig is quite condensing because he is always trying to interrupt and is extremely arrogant (but so is Atkins but to a lesser degree) in his introduction and ending speeches. Like I said Craig makes so many fallacies that Atkins or anybody could not refute all of them in the time given.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43 This is how I understood the structure of the debate. Craig made points A, B and C and asked Atkins to challenge them. Instead Atkins asked Craig to disprove point X. Craig pointed out that even if he couldn't it wouldn't disprove his points, that at best we'd be left with agnosticism. Atkins didn't really have anything to say to that and kept going, that doesn't sound like Craig being manipulative, it just sounds like Atkins not addressing the issues.
HumanInDenial 1 year ago
@HumanInDenial fair enough but Craig still is deceptive.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43 He's a good orator, regardless of beliefs they're inherently manipulative XP My issue is people keep saying he's automatically wrong and that he's obviously a glorified conman whose every other phrase is a blasphemy against logic (okay now I'm exaggerating but still) without explaining why, even once. Maybe its a sign of my intellectual poverty but even as an agnostic who doesn't agree I'm not seeing that. But maybe that would have been clearer if Atkins had actually challenged him
HumanInDenial 1 year ago
@HumanInDenial never said everything he says is a lie. However, he makes quite a few logical fallacies like saying science is circular and math cannot prove itself. Math and science are proven by observations of the natural world and axioms. God doesn't follow any such characteristics. And when we get into Christianity it is an obvious hoax when we look into the history of it. Same goes for Islam.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43 Actually what he said is that science can't prove mathematics and reason exists because science presupposes them, which was just a response to being told that science could prove everything. Also his first point in the debate was that the existence of God is an axiom, he claimed it was necessary for there to be something that had all the characteristics of a God in order for the natural world as we observe it to exist. And history isn't my thing, we won't get very far if I go there
HumanInDenial 1 year ago
@HumanInDenial mathematics is the most rigid and fundamental form of logic. Of course, if his God is omnipotent He should be able to change basic mathematics truths like 1+1=3. We know the Judeo-Christian God is derived from the Jewish polytheist pantheon (but at some time in history the Jews rejected all the other Gods and started to worship ONLY the one God known as Yahweh).
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43 I'm not refuting this, mathematics as a system is pretty damned air tight and the history of christianity is just as grey, uncertain, confused and suspect as the history of everything else. I'm as unpersuaded by Christianity as I am any other religion (or atheism for that matter) and I'd be surprised if this debate changed that, but what I'm trying to show is that Craig isn't just an eloquent strawman and that a lot of the criticism he's being shown here is misplaced.
HumanInDenial 1 year ago
@HumanInDenial he still strawmans and uses appeal to emotion a lot. Maybe not in this debate but in it is very obvious in some of his other presentations. Atheism isn't a religion btw.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43 Well I haven't seen his other debates so I guess I can't argue with that. And sorry about that last part, I wasn't trying to imply that (it's why I put it in brackets to separate it from the part about religions). I'm just saying that for this debate in particular the criticism seems vague, harsh and unwarranted, but who knows maybe I'd change my mind if I watched more of his debates.
HumanInDenial 1 year ago
Atkins says that the fisherman "joined in for the notoriety". If they joined in for that purpose, and then things changed that they could be killed for it, don't you think they would have changed their minds? They died horrible, gruesome deaths for their unwillingness to deny that Jesus Chrisy died and rose again. Atkins continues to look for things that just aren't logical or reasonable.
octobrick81 1 year ago
Given that there have been thousands of holy books written in human history. And that most of them contradict each other, I think the use of Occam's Razor (which isn't actually a rule, just a general guideline) would lead us to conclude THEY WERE WRONG.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis
Atkins says "80 years after" and Craig says "apostle Paul has letters withing 5 years".
I think Atkins didn't do his homework.
octobrick81 1 year ago
@octobrick81
I'm not really interested if they were written the day after. A book is not sufficient evidence to convince a rational person that a miracle occurred.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@octobrick81
Does it make a difference? We can't accurately know what happened yesterday when the events were witnessed by thousands, they will all provide a differing account. Add 5 years of rumours and distortion and it might as well be 80 years later. And in either case it's only a piece of fiction, if you believe it isn't then find a way to prove it's divinity. Self proclomation isn't evidence.
spinycrayfish 1 year ago
@octobrick81 craig is wrong - i've never heard of paul being 5 years after jesus - it's closer to about 20 or 30... he did his homework - the last, john wrote his 80 - 100 years afterward
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2 what did you expect? He is full of shit. He's just very good at covering it all up with fancy words and sentences.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@lukeism2
He wasn't saying Paul was 5 years after Jesus. He was referring to the early creedal formula cited in 1st Corinthians 15. It's that creedal formula which virtually all scholars accept today as being dated within 5 years of Jesus' crucifixion.
Christianjr4 10 months ago
Wow....Dr Atkins is terrified of the truth. How else do you explain an educated man talking such continuous nonsense?
nattyd50 1 year ago
i think i could have done a better job arguing about the historicity of the jesus myth
lukeism2 1 year ago
Ohhh he got owned again.
1:24 to 1:27
Now he's just making poor excuses.
EternalAshira 1 year ago
It seems a great many people leaving comments see this as a victory for Craig. This is an argument that has been raging since human beings could articulate arguments and had Craig really proven the existence of God (as some on here suggest) he would be the not only most important scholar in history but the most important human being as well. He isn't.
mattvansickle 1 year ago
@mattvansickle
The most important human being ever was Jesus Christ. He came and died for our sins after leading a perfect life. Jesus WAS GOD as well yet the people of His time STILL DENIED GOD!!! Everyone nowadays says that if they could only have "proof" of God's existence yet the evidence is everywhere.
octobrick81 1 year ago
@octobrick81 Where is this evidence?
mattvansickle 1 year ago
william craig is really good debater!!! he almost sounded like he made sense...
kapa1611 1 year ago
Atkins is kinda right. Germans attacked Poland out of boredom, too. There was just nothing to do! No videogames, no youtube... what a sad time it was. XD
thesmashmaster 1 year ago
Uh-uh-uh-uh-uh stammering fool.
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
Atkins is so full of ad hominem. wow... is this guy seriously a philosopher?
leviksu 1 year ago
@leviksu
No, Atkins is a physical chemist.
He does not have any notable studies in religion, New Testament studies, philosophy, or anything else. He's only a notable physical chemist. That clearly shows in this debate.
Nickcloudy 1 year ago
@Nickcloudy i know a guy who is a computer engineer and he's absolutely brilliant at arguing the historicity of jesus.. it comes down to how interested you are in the topic.
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2
I can argue against the historicity of certain aspect of Jesus' life. So what?
Jesus was probably illiterate. Ask any scholar.
Nickcloudy 1 year ago
Atkins is a fucking prick. Fail
leviksu 1 year ago
"so they invented the resurrection of Jesus because they were bored" oh man Atkins, throw in your towel... please this is painful... ring the bell. please someone ring the bell.
Atkins- "I don't remember writing that." oh my goodness. get your head up man.
it comes down to whether you will accept a simpler explanation.. IE, Atkins
blarbymcblarbston 1 year ago
@blarbymcblarbston
"so they invented the resurrection of Jesus because they were bored"
That's actually one of the better interpretations of that silly story I have heard in a long time.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Philosophers and scientist should never debate. Their mindsets are totally different, the philosopher just requires a good argument whereas the scientist requires proof.
Likewise the bible can't be used as proof of anything.
huntmatuk 1 year ago
@huntmatuk If there is no god then the bible is just a fairy tale based in historical places. But if there is a God and if "with God nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:37) then the virgin birth, the resurrection, the assumption into Heaven, the sudden conversion of St. Paul, parting the red sea and other miracles are possible. And also Hell is possible. But what is it to me if you start to believe or not. Unless you embrace the Universal faith you're lost anyways.
defgill 1 year ago
@defgill As I said before, the bible is just a book, no more no less. If you want to use it as proof then you have to have other documentation which also corroborates the same facts. I understand that a lot of the new testament was written decades after the even happened.
huntmatuk 1 year ago
@huntmatuk bible was written by different authors, within the 1st generation of when it happened so that it could be verified. So there are different documents that collaborate with each other, that's why they are considered authentic. If there were other similar documents, then they too would have been atleast accepted somehow, and in fact there is. The didache is as early as 70AD or earlier. Antichristian Jews Pilo (died40AD) and Historian Josephus (died94AD) reference jesus and Christianity.
defgill 1 year ago
@defgill
They collaborate with each other because they copy each other. This is what scholarship produces: Mark was written between 65-70 AD, while Luke and Matthew were first written ten years later or so. The authors of Luke and Matthew had Mark at their disposal and plagiarized parts verbatim. The same is probable of John. You don't have 4 independent sources; you have one.
Indisputable fact: we do not have any contemporary accounts of Jesus' life.
Nickcloudy 1 year ago
@Nickcloudy One thing you fail to realize is that, for the sake of argument let's say Matthew and Luke did plagiarize Mark, Matthew and Luke were disciples of the Church and of the Apostales. So if they did copy parts of Mark, it's because they had no reason NOT to disagree with the text. Rather it just complements with the rest of Luke's and Matthew's testimony about the Life of Christ. But nonetheless, they are 4 distinct testimonies about Christ which all agree with each other. God Bless...
defgill 1 year ago
@defgill
The authors of Matthew and Luke were not contemporary. - You're right, they didn't have any reason to disagree with the text. That's because they weren't witnesses. They did, however, disagree with each other on numerous occasions. How many women were at the tomb? Did Jesus die before or after the Passover meal was written? Did Jesus carry his cross?
I don't think you understand the need for contemporary non-collaborative texts and sources. The gospels just aren't these.
Nickcloudy 1 year ago
@Nickcloudy why isn't there a gospel of jesus?, was god illiterate?
lukeism2 1 year ago
"The people of palestine invented this story and endangered their lives... because they were bored???" LOL
machandxb 1 year ago 29
The apostles weren't "twelve simple fishermen." Four were fishermen. One was a tax collector. Luke, writing under the direction of Paul, was a doctor and very intelligent. Paul was a Pharisee who knew the Old Testament inside and out, and might have even memorized it, since they would memorize large portions of Scripture. We don't know what all the others did before Christ called them, but just from these few, they weren't "twelve simple fishermen." [Note: Luke wasn't an apostle.]
jahchild1904 1 year ago
I feel embarassed for him.
lip333 1 year ago
Lol... Jesus was BORN about 3AD Jesus didn't die when he was a baby... Lol So Mr Atkins assumption that the Bible was 70 years after the event is a lack of understanding.
Mr Atkins has NO IDEA.... But yet despite his complete lack of knowlege he plows through saying he is logical etc...lol.. What a joke..lol
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 The earliest gospel manuscript is dated to 70 A.D., which would be 4 decades after jesus supposedly lived.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 Yup :) That is correct. 40yrs isn't as big a time as what Mr Atkins was suggesting.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
lol... atkins got pwned
sek3009 1 year ago
His (Atkins) statement that when someone believed in God and/or Jesus has wasted his live is just extremely judgemental. Like religious persons don't attribute to society. What an arrogant little man.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
this moderator needs to go back to elementary school... I feel sorry for WLC... Every time he starts to explain something, he gets interrupted!
nckey42 1 year ago
@cannuckcomposer
"The point he is making is that it is absurd to think anyone rises from the dead - any explanation is more simple than the re-invigoration of cells from death to life, including boredom."
Wrong. It is absurd to think that people can resurrect *naturally* from the dead. The claim is that Jesus was *supernaturally* resurrected. Hence the miracle is entirely dependent upon the existence of God, which is what the debate's all about, and "boredom" lacks explanatory scope and power.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
im an agnostic, but lane craig is quite persuasive in this debate
"they got themselves killed coz they were bored"?!?!?! fail
kash959 1 year ago 2
the whole Jesus resurrection thing really can not be a matter of scientific debate.. not after you ve seen David Blaine :)
dinkolino2 1 year ago
@dinkolino2
ah, a true dumbass.
dannyz780 1 year ago
@dannyz780 You need to grow a brain before you even begin to understand what I said.
dinkolino2 1 year ago
then explain it dumbass.
dannyz780 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dannyz780 Your special needs are really not my problem, kid
dinkolino2 1 year ago
Craig and Atkins both have dogmatic presuppositions.
BillTheWaterDrinker 1 year ago
wowowowowow..haahhahahaa thats hilrioaus i think imma make up a complex story to endanger my life. Akins is ingorant to say that those guys were bored. Who is man to judge a man when you don't even know them.
azar24701 1 year ago