@askegg You know what I see in this, in my family and every time I look at myself when I wake up? A pile of atoms with what I believe has no actual purpose for them to exist other than existence itself. An interesting chemical reaction occurring in an opportune environment, both in space, time and within the coordinates of the varying universal constants that each reality seems to posses. I believe we have no more purpose than a cup of lemonade we make and use to quench our thirst.
@askegg Thanks for the fast response time. Also, I made a little mistake which I'd like to correct during the period of time between replies, mostly because I'm not a native English speaker, I do have my own little pride for my language skills, and I have time to kill for the moment. So "with what I believe has no actual purpose" is brought to the "with what I believe no actual purpose" form or an alternate "which, what I believe, has no actual purpose". Indecisiveness might be the errors cause.
Jesus walks the earth every day. He goes to school and works in cafes.
Oh wait. I dont mean the messiah. I mean the people called Jesus. It's an hispanic name [i think?]. What I know is that it is pronounced "hey-zoos" or "zeus" and there are a lot of people called it.
Oh man, he trots out the old "The empty tomb proves he got up and flew up to heaven" canard. William Lane Craig loves this, he even says that Occam's Razor favors this totally unprecedented explaination. It is like asking "If Frog & Toad weren't real then who planted that little garden in front of Frog's house, huh?"
The Chistian in this video, and any others that ask the "Well, were did everything come from, huh?" question that makes them think they are so intellectual should be told to watch "A Universe From Nothing" a lecture by Lawerence Krauss. It is on YT and anyone who is interested in the matter should watch it, it's fascinating and easy to understand. One important point is, the laws of cause-and-effect that apply IN our universe do not necessarily have to apply TO our universe.
I realize the definitions of agnostic and atheist are how they are defined in this videos, as well as in Athesit Experience clips. However, this is how I see them commonly used: An atheist does not believe in gods and an agnostic doesn't believe in gods but doesn't really want to admit it because of the bad PR atheists have.
The people of Jesus' day were very gullible as many people are today.
Matthew 16:13-14 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
All these guys were dead. Yet people were willing to believe that Jesus was a dead prophet who had resurrected.
@askegg Yes, it was well done. I tried to talk to someone similar to that guy, but it just went nowhere. I applaud your ability to cut through the BS!
i don't see how people grow to realize santa claus is a myth, but still hold on to jesus. even if santa was based on a real person, the santa myth is as ridiculous as the jesus one.
Fairy stories are repeated thousands of time a week but this does not make them true.
The barber/doctors used to believe some really crazy shit but we know better now, so believing something doesnt make it true the sun does not orbit the earth.
Many things that every one knew to be true has since been found that belief in them was misguided, and tomorrow what will we be proven that our belief in was wrong.
"Historical" is one of the new Xian buzzwords. They think that it sounds convincing --- like oxymoronic phrases such as Christian "Science" or "objectivity" in religion.
I suppose that such arguments do sound convincing to the already-deluded. It only goes to demonstrate that religious indoctrination impairs the capacity to think logically.
They seem to be incapable of recognizing that their fallacious arguments are long refuted.
How can there be objectivity within religion? Your whole stance is based on something that is unknown, unknowable, and by all current means, _unprovable_. It's at best pure speculation, or "faith" if you prefer. How can such a stance ever be considered objective?
I wonder if the Catholics and Protestants will be the first to use that blasphemy law against each other. I have been to both churches and both have said the other is going to hell.
I like the combination definition... I'm an agnostic atheist towards the general idea of some form of god, and a gnostic atheist towards any of the definitions of gods I've seen posited.
In my short time here on youtube, I've noticed that every theistic argument usually culminates in some sort of emotional pleading. They don't have any evidence for their assertions, but they just have to believe it on faith anyways.
Not true - the hundreds of proteins required for even the simplest form of life are not found anywhere naturally unless they are made by a cell.
Please show me a link to a report of scientists finding just ONE perfectly arranged and shaped protein naturally without interaction of life. I'd love to see it.
You are looking at a modern cell, which it itself the result of billions of years of evolution, or change and natural selection. Those with features and properties giving them an advantage over their competition survive and pass on their characteristics.
The first forms of life are much simpler. In fact the distinction between simple life and complex molecular interactions is very blurry.
no, no, no. I'm looking at the scientific model of the most simple cell possible, which requires AT LEAST 150 very complexly built and shaped proteins (not to mention it also requires the DNA and RNA to replicate those proteins). Explain to me how that arose naturally.
I have no idea which particular cell you are referring to so I cannot comment directly, however the point still stands. You are trying to declare irreducible complexity (therefore your particular god) without actually trying to show all 150 proteins cannot have arising naturally over the course of numerous generations.
the cell i am referring to is a scientific idea, it is does not exist. what it is is a model of a cell that contains only the absolutely vital attributes for life (150 proteins). you must admit, if you are going to trace life back to its simplest form, eventually, it couldn't get any simpler. this is what scientists have done, and they have found that the most simple form of life possible requires at least 150 proteins to survive. life could not evolved to 150 proteins, it had to start with them
Well that depends on how you define "life". On of the problems with the approach you are taking is that is is looking for the simplest *cell*, not the simplest structures which self replicate.
i don't have a link because i read it elsewhere than the internet. Just consider the basics of Biology. just to make a protein, first life needs the gene, (which would have at least 150 bases, for even the smallest protein) the three types of RNA (again the mRNA needing at least 150 bases) and a bunch of proteins (to name a few, DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase, DNA helicase etc) I have been striving for years to find out how these all came together, and the only credible answer i have found is ID
So the only plausible solution to you is "magic man done it"? Does not not sound like a reasonable explanation to me - where did the sky wizard/alien come from?
you have to look past your five senses. u can only see the visible spectrum, rite? but you believe in the other parts of the spectrum because you can see their effects (radio, microwave ovens, tv remotes, x-rays). just look outside. i believe life and the universe is the effect of some intelligent designer, and i believe that even though i can't see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or feel it. for me, there is just too much order in life and its systems to be the result of chance.
I love it when a believer says 'historians admit there was as man named Jesus'...
I always at that point say, "I went to the home depot the other day, there were 3 guys named Jesus there. What does that prove?"
As far as the 'historical evidence', how can anyone think a biased accounts passed down and manipulated by christians over 2000 years would be accurate? Fox News can't even accurately report what happens when they have it on video right in front of them...
PLEASE tell me that blasphemy law didn't actually pass - did it? The last I heard, you Irish freethinkers were staging rallies and protests to call attention to the dangers of such legislation.....
sadly it was passed... the irish constitution apparently requires a blasphemy law... there was always 1 there but it couldnt be enforced... it gave no definition of blasphemy ... our constitution is riddled with references to god too... the schools and some other institutions are run by the church too...i hope atheist ireland's campaign too appeal the law works
thankfully the newer generations of Irish people are becoming more secular...republic of Ireland is nowhere near as old as the USA either... we got independence(from the British) in the 1920's.. then had a civil war like you and until the 5th amendment to the constitution in 1973 the church had a "special position" as guardian of the faith in ireland due to its majority
i think i heard atheist ireland is planning on writing an open letter to insult all religious groups the day after the law comes into force... so its tested straight away unlike the old blasphemy law that was defined in 1962 but wasn't tested until 1999
The oldest copies of Mark end with the women being afraid to tell. The last 12 verses were added in the 4th century or later. That's what one would expect of women in the 1st century. If they didn't tell, how would Mark know about it? It is obviously a fictional account. Matthew and Luke added divergent stories when they copied Mark.
It is more likely that the resurrection did not happen.
What historians is this guy taking about? The Bible, that perfect book, doesn't even agree on who were first at the tomb and what happened. See Matthew, Mark and Luke.
How does Christianity fit in with the Big Bang? It does not. Big Bang = No desert god of the Bible.
It fits really well with the Big Bang. The idea of the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaitre. Einstein didn't like it at first admitting it was because it fit too closely with Christian dogma. But it was quickly validated by Hubble's work and later background radiation, so had to be accepted by science.
So you are not a Christian that believes that the Bible is true? You do not believe the world is only 6 thousand years old and flat, as it says in the Bible? Remember, the Devil showed Jesus the four corners of the world.
If you believe in the Big Bang 15 billion years ago, your perfect word of God, the Bible, is false.
I like the part about whether Jesus was born during the reign of Herod (4 BC at the latest) and when Quirinius was governor of Syria (6 AD). A difference of at least nine years. Yet apologists say that differing accounts proves its validity. If a historian made the claim the the American Civil War and the Crimean War happened at the same time, he'd be tarred, feathered and run out of academia for asserting such nonsense.
hey askegg, a person who is an agnostic atheist can also be a gnostic atheist, depending on the wording of the standard for knowledge, which is easy to change legitimately.
Yes - the difference between knowledge and belief is not clear cut. Ultimately we believe everything and assume to know things. At least that's my view.
I usually try not too since many theists retreat into their ad hominem caves and declare victory. Mind you, the occasional no holds bar swearing rant certainly gets people subscribers.
The guy with the glasses believes that there's "a lot" of historical evidence for the divine Christ??!! The historical evidence is PAPER THIN and some of that evidence is interpolated!! That dude really needs to stop reading THEIST(biased) books and start researching for himself!!
This old shtick about "secular historians overwhelmingly agree that Jesus... etc" is a falsehood that originates with apologist literature. Many real historians have gone through these claims and actually checked the original sources. In my personal experience, whenever an apologist presents a quote that appears curiously untypical for the author or the scientific majority opinion respectively, i.e. fishy, it is 90% likely that he has been quotemining to support a desired conclusion.
(contd.) Apologists quote Sherwin-White for example, to lend credibility to the Bible as a source of accurate history. However, S.-W. was a scholar of Roman culture, and those elements are what he looked for when using the Bible as source material. He was not at all concerned with the accuracy of Jesus's biography let alone any supernatural claims. Apologists omit that and pretend that S.-W. had supported their claims about miracles and biographical details.
(contd. 2) I consider that lying, given the standards held in academia, which most apologists should be expected to know and evidently consciously ignore.
Good to know - I will look into that aspect of the argument. Mind you, it is common knowledge the entire faith is built on the 4 main books, which were written decades after the fact and is backed by no physical evidence whatsoever.
His reasoning is so strange. People were not capable of doing dishonest things 2000 years ago? Did they have the mental capacity or something? Or where honest cause they said they were said so.. ? Ops.
... and that's all before you even begin to look at the effects of non-written stories told person to person. Most people can't retell accurately what happened last week. If they want other people to make note of and retell it. Then they better extravagate it just 'a bit'.
40 years of Chinese whispers, followed by numerous translations, rewritings, interpretations, divisions, votes, and edits. Yep - lots of truth in that. I guess God was guiding the entire thing.
yeah, I didn't even account for the authority edits, forgot about that. That adds a hole new level of corrections just to try to increase and validate the authority.
I donno, this really nothing more than evolution of oral stories. A plain story ordinary will never survive so little bending of the truth by the story teller keeps it alive.
On the other hand since supposedly 'real' or 'factual' stories were more popular than fiction. If modification exceeds what people are willing to believe at that time then it will often be corrected or selected against.
I guess this is just adds another reason for theist to hate the concept of evolution.
Atheist would be A-theist or Lack of Belief right? Not do not believe...I'm on the atheist side of the argument, I just don't see the definition including a belief in anything and then a negative overall view due to a disbelief or non-belief in a certain diety(s); rather than just a lack of belief...
If atheism is defined as "someone who denies the existence of God" implicitly implies the existence of a God to disbelieve in. It may seem a minor point, but language is a powerful thing.
Watch the linked video for a good explanation. I ranted on the same point but had to cut it to fit into the 10 minute limit.
Comment removed
Analice29 2 months ago
@askegg You know what I see in this, in my family and every time I look at myself when I wake up? A pile of atoms with what I believe has no actual purpose for them to exist other than existence itself. An interesting chemical reaction occurring in an opportune environment, both in space, time and within the coordinates of the varying universal constants that each reality seems to posses. I believe we have no more purpose than a cup of lemonade we make and use to quench our thirst.
h19v91 7 months ago
@h19v91 I forgot what I said. I am going to re-watch this video and see if any of my opinions have changed.
askegg 7 months ago
@askegg Thanks for the fast response time. Also, I made a little mistake which I'd like to correct during the period of time between replies, mostly because I'm not a native English speaker, I do have my own little pride for my language skills, and I have time to kill for the moment. So "with what I believe has no actual purpose" is brought to the "with what I believe no actual purpose" form or an alternate "which, what I believe, has no actual purpose". Indecisiveness might be the errors cause.
h19v91 7 months ago
@h19v91
troll
tdjdk 2 months ago
@tdjdk Problem? ;D
h19v91 2 months ago
Jesus walks the earth every day. He goes to school and works in cafes.
Oh wait. I dont mean the messiah. I mean the people called Jesus. It's an hispanic name [i think?]. What I know is that it is pronounced "hey-zoos" or "zeus" and there are a lot of people called it.
JESUS LIVES ;O
inventiveinsanity 2 years ago
Oh man, he trots out the old "The empty tomb proves he got up and flew up to heaven" canard. William Lane Craig loves this, he even says that Occam's Razor favors this totally unprecedented explaination. It is like asking "If Frog & Toad weren't real then who planted that little garden in front of Frog's house, huh?"
jimbrown257 2 years ago
The Chistian in this video, and any others that ask the "Well, were did everything come from, huh?" question that makes them think they are so intellectual should be told to watch "A Universe From Nothing" a lecture by Lawerence Krauss. It is on YT and anyone who is interested in the matter should watch it, it's fascinating and easy to understand. One important point is, the laws of cause-and-effect that apply IN our universe do not necessarily have to apply TO our universe.
jimbrown257 2 years ago
I realize the definitions of agnostic and atheist are how they are defined in this videos, as well as in Athesit Experience clips. However, this is how I see them commonly used: An atheist does not believe in gods and an agnostic doesn't believe in gods but doesn't really want to admit it because of the bad PR atheists have.
jimbrown257 2 years ago
The people of Jesus' day were very gullible as many people are today.
Matthew 16:13-14 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
All these guys were dead. Yet people were willing to believe that Jesus was a dead prophet who had resurrected.
Any wonder they believed Jesus myths?
Ebal
ebaltrace 2 years ago
How did the universe begin or was it always here? Do we believe in Jesus or in Science?
The Jesus story is complete and when one honestly examines the evidence it is evident that Christianity is false.
The Jesus story is a dead end, but Science is an open road to follow as new discoveries bring to light a greater understanding of our universe.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
wow sweet video. Stumbled upon it. I want this level quality stuff too! I subscribed shortly after this.
newexperiment 2 years ago
Yes - I should do more of these.
I have had a eloquent response to another of my videos which deserves addressing. When I get time....
askegg 2 years ago
@askegg Yes, it was well done. I tried to talk to someone similar to that guy, but it just went nowhere. I applaud your ability to cut through the BS!
KaraRvn 1 year ago
Today ,we have mostly, stupid ass journalism. Rarely the political truth ! Thanks egg.
steviebkhall 2 years ago
Interesting, this person was having a totally different conversation... it sounds like he wasn't talking to you at all!
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago
Whenever I cannot FINDSOMETHING....I naturally ASSUME that OBJECT THAT IS MISSING has RISEN FROM THE DEAD!! yes,thatwayigetaveryquickanswer..uhhuh!
warwithangels 2 years ago
i don't see how people grow to realize santa claus is a myth, but still hold on to jesus. even if santa was based on a real person, the santa myth is as ridiculous as the jesus one.
styrofoamheart 2 years ago
Fairy stories are repeated thousands of time a week but this does not make them true.
The barber/doctors used to believe some really crazy shit but we know better now, so believing something doesnt make it true the sun does not orbit the earth.
Many things that every one knew to be true has since been found that belief in them was misguided, and tomorrow what will we be proven that our belief in was wrong.
billythefifer 2 years ago
I would like someone to prove to me that TIME
exists
blueeyedstarfish 2 years ago
Read Stephen Hawking 'A (brief) history of time'
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
go to a newsstand ; )
SaintCog 2 years ago
look at a clock. lol
I'm just messin, I don't really feel like a philosophical argument right now.
Shigren 2 years ago
I don't think he underands, that atheism is a category to fall under. As is agnostic. He sees them on a kind of spectrum.
cookieeatbird 2 years ago
History is written by the winners.
happysplodie 2 years ago
"Historical" is one of the new Xian buzzwords. They think that it sounds convincing --- like oxymoronic phrases such as Christian "Science" or "objectivity" in religion.
I suppose that such arguments do sound convincing to the already-deluded. It only goes to demonstrate that religious indoctrination impairs the capacity to think logically.
They seem to be incapable of recognizing that their fallacious arguments are long refuted.
dysturbyte 2 years ago
Uhhhhh what.
How can there be objectivity within religion? Your whole stance is based on something that is unknown, unknowable, and by all current means, _unprovable_. It's at best pure speculation, or "faith" if you prefer. How can such a stance ever be considered objective?
robfathah 2 years ago
I reckon Evangelicals arsehole is sore after that!!
nedbeaty72 2 years ago
I wonder if the Catholics and Protestants will be the first to use that blasphemy law against each other. I have been to both churches and both have said the other is going to hell.
dtm52 2 years ago
I like the combination definition... I'm an agnostic atheist towards the general idea of some form of god, and a gnostic atheist towards any of the definitions of gods I've seen posited.
TETSUno1 2 years ago
In my short time here on youtube, I've noticed that every theistic argument usually culminates in some sort of emotional pleading. They don't have any evidence for their assertions, but they just have to believe it on faith anyways.
Raptor302 2 years ago
Yup, Raptor - I've noticed the same darn thing. And that's pretty much where their 'arguments' begin and end.....
DefenderOfReason 2 years ago
The 'empty tomb' argument boggles my mind..
Brianswers 2 years ago
It was empty, therefore pixies helped Jesus onto a unicorn and rode to candy mountain.
Hey! You can't prove me wrong.
askegg 2 years ago
Sounds plausible! :)
Brianswers 2 years ago
life starting on its own is far less probable than a teapot orbiting around Jupiter, but u seem to believe it with no problem.
peetah94 2 years ago
Not true - we have vast amounts of evidence to support the idea that life is based on naturally occurring chemical structures.
askegg 2 years ago
Not true - the hundreds of proteins required for even the simplest form of life are not found anywhere naturally unless they are made by a cell.
Please show me a link to a report of scientists finding just ONE perfectly arranged and shaped protein naturally without interaction of life. I'd love to see it.
peetah94 2 years ago
You are looking at a modern cell, which it itself the result of billions of years of evolution, or change and natural selection. Those with features and properties giving them an advantage over their competition survive and pass on their characteristics.
The first forms of life are much simpler. In fact the distinction between simple life and complex molecular interactions is very blurry.
askegg 2 years ago
no, no, no. I'm looking at the scientific model of the most simple cell possible, which requires AT LEAST 150 very complexly built and shaped proteins (not to mention it also requires the DNA and RNA to replicate those proteins). Explain to me how that arose naturally.
peetah94 2 years ago
I have no idea which particular cell you are referring to so I cannot comment directly, however the point still stands. You are trying to declare irreducible complexity (therefore your particular god) without actually trying to show all 150 proteins cannot have arising naturally over the course of numerous generations.
askegg 2 years ago
the cell i am referring to is a scientific idea, it is does not exist. what it is is a model of a cell that contains only the absolutely vital attributes for life (150 proteins). you must admit, if you are going to trace life back to its simplest form, eventually, it couldn't get any simpler. this is what scientists have done, and they have found that the most simple form of life possible requires at least 150 proteins to survive. life could not evolved to 150 proteins, it had to start with them
peetah94 2 years ago
Well that depends on how you define "life". On of the problems with the approach you are taking is that is is looking for the simplest *cell*, not the simplest structures which self replicate.
Do you have a link to the paper?
askegg 2 years ago
i don't have a link because i read it elsewhere than the internet. Just consider the basics of Biology. just to make a protein, first life needs the gene, (which would have at least 150 bases, for even the smallest protein) the three types of RNA (again the mRNA needing at least 150 bases) and a bunch of proteins (to name a few, DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase, DNA helicase etc) I have been striving for years to find out how these all came together, and the only credible answer i have found is ID
peetah94 2 years ago
So the only plausible solution to you is "magic man done it"? Does not not sound like a reasonable explanation to me - where did the sky wizard/alien come from?
askegg 2 years ago
you have to look past your five senses. u can only see the visible spectrum, rite? but you believe in the other parts of the spectrum because you can see their effects (radio, microwave ovens, tv remotes, x-rays). just look outside. i believe life and the universe is the effect of some intelligent designer, and i believe that even though i can't see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or feel it. for me, there is just too much order in life and its systems to be the result of chance.
peetah94 2 years ago
Um....if you don't have the link, then how did you read it on the internet?
Methinks you're pulling shit out of your ass, and until you provide objective evidence to the contrary, my hypothesis has not been disproven.
middlekk 2 years ago
dude, u really need to learn to read. "elsewhere than the internet" means i did not read it on the internet
peetah94 2 years ago
You're kidding, right? We've been making artificial proteins for decades.
Here's a BOOK on the subject. Stewart, J.M.; Young, J.D. (1984). Solid phase peptide synthesis (2nd ed.). Rockford: Pierce Chemical Company.
middlekk 2 years ago
wait, when did i say we've never made artificial proteins?
peetah94 2 years ago
If we are to be intellectually honest, then everyone should be an agnostic.
Raptor302 2 years ago
great video askegg!
emblue9206 2 years ago
I looove askegg videos. Keep 'em coming.
Clausfarre 2 years ago 2
Brain vs Pinky...
nigelred 2 years ago
Pinky and the Brain, one is delusional and the other is an Atheist.
dtm52 2 years ago
"I have plans to take over the werld"
askegg 2 years ago
I love it when a believer says 'historians admit there was as man named Jesus'...
I always at that point say, "I went to the home depot the other day, there were 3 guys named Jesus there. What does that prove?"
As far as the 'historical evidence', how can anyone think a biased accounts passed down and manipulated by christians over 2000 years would be accurate? Fox News can't even accurately report what happens when they have it on video right in front of them...
cyxgun 2 years ago
"The best explanation for all the data..." Ha hilarious. "data", LMFAO
agnosticman77 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this! I get so tired of my disbelief being misrepresented by intellectually dishonest theists!
DefenderOfReason 2 years ago
agreed but dont forget about the "intellectually deficient" and those who are just brainwashed
irishlonewolf88 2 years ago
Brainwashed? Well that's 90% of 'em - in the US at least.....
DefenderOfReason 2 years ago
good point... at least the US has no blasphemy law ... otherwise you'd be in serious trouble
irishlonewolf88 2 years ago
PLEASE tell me that blasphemy law didn't actually pass - did it? The last I heard, you Irish freethinkers were staging rallies and protests to call attention to the dangers of such legislation.....
DefenderOfReason 2 years ago
sadly it was passed... the irish constitution apparently requires a blasphemy law... there was always 1 there but it couldnt be enforced... it gave no definition of blasphemy ... our constitution is riddled with references to god too... the schools and some other institutions are run by the church too...i hope atheist ireland's campaign too appeal the law works
irishlonewolf88 2 years ago
That is really sad, my friend :-( That will simply NEVER be allowed in my country, despite the prevalence of nutjobs and whackos in the US......
DefenderOfReason 2 years ago
thankfully the newer generations of Irish people are becoming more secular...republic of Ireland is nowhere near as old as the USA either... we got independence(from the British) in the 1920's.. then had a civil war like you and until the 5th amendment to the constitution in 1973 the church had a "special position" as guardian of the faith in ireland due to its majority
irishlonewolf88 2 years ago
Well we sure do wish you the best, and stand shoulder to shoulder with your efforts :-)
DefenderOfReason 2 years ago
same to you :)
irishlonewolf88 2 years ago
The first blasphemy case will be a very interesting one to watch. It should show the law is unworkable.
askegg 2 years ago
i think i heard atheist ireland is planning on writing an open letter to insult all religious groups the day after the law comes into force... so its tested straight away unlike the old blasphemy law that was defined in 1962 but wasn't tested until 1999
irishlonewolf88 2 years ago
The oldest copies of Mark end with the women being afraid to tell. The last 12 verses were added in the 4th century or later. That's what one would expect of women in the 1st century. If they didn't tell, how would Mark know about it? It is obviously a fictional account. Matthew and Luke added divergent stories when they copied Mark.
It is more likely that the resurrection did not happen.
8WholeThing 2 years ago
This is just excellent. Subscribed.
I'm also glad I subscribed to the tag 'atheism' otherwise I wouldn't have hit such gems.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
You can subscribe to a tag?
askegg 2 years ago
Yes, it's pretty awesome. In your 'subscriptions' browser you can add tags you want to subscribe to.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
I see you've been working on your face palm... very well done.
CharlesVarney 2 years ago
Pretty calm response :)
Fraghka 2 years ago
well done
VoodooSixxx 2 years ago
Brilliant calm well formed response. I couldn't say it better. Spot On.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
Comment removed
RosieDesire 2 years ago
What historians is this guy taking about? The Bible, that perfect book, doesn't even agree on who were first at the tomb and what happened. See Matthew, Mark and Luke.
How does Christianity fit in with the Big Bang? It does not. Big Bang = No desert god of the Bible.
dtm52 2 years ago
"How does Christianity fit in with the Big Bang?"
It fits really well with the Big Bang. The idea of the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaitre. Einstein didn't like it at first admitting it was because it fit too closely with Christian dogma. But it was quickly validated by Hubble's work and later background radiation, so had to be accepted by science.
happileepuppilee 2 years ago 2
Happileepuppilee
So you are not a Christian that believes that the Bible is true? You do not believe the world is only 6 thousand years old and flat, as it says in the Bible? Remember, the Devil showed Jesus the four corners of the world.
If you believe in the Big Bang 15 billion years ago, your perfect word of God, the Bible, is false.
dtm52 2 years ago
I like the part about whether Jesus was born during the reign of Herod (4 BC at the latest) and when Quirinius was governor of Syria (6 AD). A difference of at least nine years. Yet apologists say that differing accounts proves its validity. If a historian made the claim the the American Civil War and the Crimean War happened at the same time, he'd be tarred, feathered and run out of academia for asserting such nonsense.
WhereTheGoodNamesAt 2 years ago
I couldn't have the patience that you do with these idiots. Great video askegg.
modecom 2 years ago
History is objective"
So the winners and losers got together to write history?
intelligentfalling 2 years ago
At the end,,,,,,,, I could feel your pain!!
Regards,
Rhysz
Rhysz1 2 years ago
hey askegg, a person who is an agnostic atheist can also be a gnostic atheist, depending on the wording of the standard for knowledge, which is easy to change legitimately.
Thrashaero 2 years ago
Yes - the difference between knowledge and belief is not clear cut. Ultimately we believe everything and assume to know things. At least that's my view.
askegg 2 years ago
askegg, can you get a bit more angry please and swear more.
benperkins1 2 years ago
Yes. Yes I can.
I usually try not too since many theists retreat into their ad hominem caves and declare victory. Mind you, the occasional no holds bar swearing rant certainly gets people subscribers.
askegg 2 years ago
Nice one man. This guy looks like Thunderf00t's doppleganger.
4jonah 2 years ago
The anti-thunderf00t? We must ensure these guys never meet or the universe will explode. Again.
askegg 2 years ago
that is fucking funny.
a300pilotster 2 years ago
that IS fucking funny!
premed2 2 years ago
The guy with the glasses believes that there's "a lot" of historical evidence for the divine Christ??!! The historical evidence is PAPER THIN and some of that evidence is interpolated!! That dude really needs to stop reading THEIST(biased) books and start researching for himself!!
99minerkc 2 years ago
This old shtick about "secular historians overwhelmingly agree that Jesus... etc" is a falsehood that originates with apologist literature. Many real historians have gone through these claims and actually checked the original sources. In my personal experience, whenever an apologist presents a quote that appears curiously untypical for the author or the scientific majority opinion respectively, i.e. fishy, it is 90% likely that he has been quotemining to support a desired conclusion.
blackwolf1272 2 years ago
(contd.) Apologists quote Sherwin-White for example, to lend credibility to the Bible as a source of accurate history. However, S.-W. was a scholar of Roman culture, and those elements are what he looked for when using the Bible as source material. He was not at all concerned with the accuracy of Jesus's biography let alone any supernatural claims. Apologists omit that and pretend that S.-W. had supported their claims about miracles and biographical details.
blackwolf1272 2 years ago
(contd. 2) I consider that lying, given the standards held in academia, which most apologists should be expected to know and evidently consciously ignore.
blackwolf1272 2 years ago
Good to know - I will look into that aspect of the argument. Mind you, it is common knowledge the entire faith is built on the 4 main books, which were written decades after the fact and is backed by no physical evidence whatsoever.
askegg 2 years ago
Agnostic is not 50/50 - that will mean that there are equally valid proof and evidence for both positions - there aren't.
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
Exactly. This subtlety is lost of the majority of people.
askegg 2 years ago
His reasoning is so strange. People were not capable of doing dishonest things 2000 years ago? Did they have the mental capacity or something? Or where honest cause they said they were said so.. ? Ops.
... and that's all before you even begin to look at the effects of non-written stories told person to person. Most people can't retell accurately what happened last week. If they want other people to make note of and retell it. Then they better extravagate it just 'a bit'.
asdffdas1234 2 years ago
40 years of Chinese whispers, followed by numerous translations, rewritings, interpretations, divisions, votes, and edits. Yep - lots of truth in that. I guess God was guiding the entire thing.
askegg 2 years ago
yeah, I didn't even account for the authority edits, forgot about that. That adds a hole new level of corrections just to try to increase and validate the authority.
asdffdas1234 2 years ago
I donno, this really nothing more than evolution of oral stories. A plain story ordinary will never survive so little bending of the truth by the story teller keeps it alive.
On the other hand since supposedly 'real' or 'factual' stories were more popular than fiction. If modification exceeds what people are willing to believe at that time then it will often be corrected or selected against.
I guess this is just adds another reason for theist to hate the concept of evolution.
asdffdas1234 2 years ago
Atheist would be A-theist or Lack of Belief right? Not do not believe...I'm on the atheist side of the argument, I just don't see the definition including a belief in anything and then a negative overall view due to a disbelief or non-belief in a certain diety(s); rather than just a lack of belief...
70k0 2 years ago
If atheism is defined as "someone who denies the existence of God" implicitly implies the existence of a God to disbelieve in. It may seem a minor point, but language is a powerful thing.
Watch the linked video for a good explanation. I ranted on the same point but had to cut it to fit into the 10 minute limit.
askegg 2 years ago
An excellent vid, but I spent the entire time thinking about teapots. :p
premed2 2 years ago
Naaaaaaaaaaaah. Thinking about Dog is cooler ^^
wolfhowlmedia 2 years ago
LOL!
premed2 2 years ago
Not bears?
askegg 2 years ago
Nope, just lions, tigers, and teakettles.
premed2 2 years ago
1st!
mijusdek 2 years ago
the teapot is yours.
premed2 2 years ago