@Offspringfan64 Yeah, who gets called up to the big leagues now? I think Michael's at the top of that list -- except he's much more of a consensus builder (one of the things I like about him). He generally won't tear into people or ideas like Hitch would There's no such thing as a Shermerslap. As for me, I will continue my role as one of the four Donkeymen.
@misterdeity I would pick Victor Stenger, Chris DiPaolo, or Michael Shermer. Just because Shermer isn't as confrontational as Hitch doesn't mean he wouldn't fit in. Dan Dennett hardly ever debates because it isn't his specialty. Besides, Sam Harris is an absolute wrecking ball to faith anyway.
@moophitozzy I am in league with Christopher Hitchens who calls himself and anti-theist. Atheism simply means that you are without a belief in God or gods. I go a bit further by being opposed to the very idea of theism -- mainly because I believe the idea has done (and continues to do) untold damage to the human race.
@misterdeity Just wanted to say I love the work you all do. Religious satire is my favorite genre of comedy. I was a little intrigued reading you're anti-theist though, considering theism provides so much great comedic material. Do you not enjoy your work? Is this a duty for you? Like the league militant atheists professionally lampooned and ridiculed religious people in the USSR last century. Regardless of your motivations and beliefs, thanks for the merriment. I'll be donating :)
@TheAgnosticPantheist I think the only reason religion has survived so long (and so well) is because they have gotten a free pass -- no one has dared to go after them to expose their silliness. In that regard, I do feel some kind of duty as I think the principles of religion have done the single greatest harm to humanity. But really, it's just a great find that has been mined by so few. If it hadn't been religion, it would be the other "r" word -- republicans.
@misterdeity No one has dared to expose them for their silliness? The earliest depiction of Christ we have is a man on a cross with a donkey's head. Please I hope you don't think I'm defending such institutions and their atrocities. During inquisitions people like us were burned at the stake. These faith based organizations are like any other organic construct. If they don't adapt to changing environments they wither and die. I just hope the silliness continues for your career sake.
@misterdeity Pantheist belief usually lacks any conscious deity. Panentheism is the universe as a conscious deity. Blah Greek... So Pantheists don't leave you with a role to play. The point is easy to miss because it's all around us and it is you! You're the point, just as I am. Just as our Sun is the point, everything was/is the point. I like the 4 donkey men of the apocalypse. If there's not a skit on that there should be.I have no worries for the rest of my days. Hakuna Matata :P
The religious tendency is part of human nature, so even skeptics are vulnerable to thinking in a religious way about their skepticism. I see this often. They stray from objectivity and become fervent and zealous and refer to Dawkins, Randi, and others as if these men were some kind of gurus or something.
@ericjungleboy I think more than simply a "religious tendency" it's a general tendency to form hierarchy and foster submission which is in fact encouraged by most societal institutions such as family, school and the workplace. Ridding oneself of supernatural authority is not enough to free oneself from the mental constraints of the many other arbitrary authoritarian institutions in society, though it is an important step of that process.
@JPSovereignStrikes I don't know, and neither do you. But "I don't know" doesn't mean that we need to assume something more. It just means that we don't know. Unless, of course, you want to make an argument from ignorance (which , I suspect, you do).
Whether or not we can answer the question of how the Universe came into existence is irrelevant. If we don't know something, then the conversation is over. Any explanation like 'God' stated after the admittance of ignorance is nothing more than a worthless explanation that will never suit a greater purpose other than for comfort. Humans are hardwired to seek comfort. if the conflict is to choose between comfort and truth, the brain usually chooses comfort.
Besides, you can't provide evidence for something that doesn't exist. In this case, I'm using the common meaning of the word 'Existence' which means the world that exists through our senses. God, by definition is beyond existence I:E the physical universe. Now you are correction on saying that "there is no god" is a positive assertion, but it doesn't need to be justified, and here's why. (next post)
Unprovable concepts invented by humans are commonly stated to be superstition and be non-existent. Everything from fairies, to dragons, to ghosts and ghouls, to bigfoot, and nessy; hell, even Santa Claus. If you want a Strong Atheist to prove one of these concepts false, then all concepts like these must also be proven false. Belief in one of these is enough to give them credence beyond other "silly" beliefs you don't believe in.
The "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is the name of a fallacy.Arguments from ignorance draw a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities.A fallacy that you have used over and over again.You do not understand the Bible.You claimed that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem because it says he was born in "The City of David" (Luke 2:4) even after I said that The City of David was another name for Bethlehem.You show your ignorance
I read all your comments.I said "It says in the Old and New Testament that he would be born in Bethlehem and it never deviates from that."
You replied "In fact it does deviate from that. the OT says that the "King of the Jews" or "The anointed one" would come from the City of David""
Now you are resorting to complete dishonesty.This is very telling of how intellectually dishonest you are & how you will apparently resort to any dishonest trick or lie to make your argument seem correct
"Yes, you are correct that both authors agree Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but beyond that their stories are hardly in agreement"
I apologize that I may have misled you. I know what the OT says about the coming Messiah. My point was to say that the writers of Matthew and Luke created the stories to "fit" the prophecies. I understand that you can't conceive of that happening, and that's why I tried to point out all the variances in their stories.
@isthechurchtrue Rather than address the issues of contention you keep dodging them by using Ad Hominem and straw men attacks, if you want to be pedantic about logical fallacies.
Please stick to the debate and address the discrepancies that I've pointed out to you.
@isthechurchtrue I will reiterate,"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is being used by you incorrectly. In many cases absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when evidence should be expected.
I'll give another example for you here.
Luke tells of the census ordered by Augustus. We have very good records from the emperors' reign and there is no mention of such a census. Does that mean it absolutely did not happen? No. But it is reason for having doubt about the claim.
@isthechurchtrue So Luke has the family living in Nazareth and traveling to Bethlehem for the census and Matthew has them living in Bethlehem prior to the birth.
Luke also does not tell of Joseph fleeing to Egypt as depicted in Matthew, rather they quickly return to Nazareth.
@isthechurchtrue I don't usually use Wikipedia as the most authoritative source, but for simplicity sake I will cut and past a few comments to you, so maybe you can understand some of my points. But please, get a good book on the critical method of reading the bible and learn some of this yourself.
"The birth narratives have been considered problematic by a number of critical scholars particularly because they are laced with theology and are indebted to precursor texts.[7]"
@isthechurchtrue "The Gospel of Matthew relates the appearance of an angel, in a dream, to Joseph; the wise men from the east; the massacre of the innocents; and the flight to Egypt. The Gospel of Luke mentions none of these but describes the conception and birth of Jesus; the appearance of an angel to Mary; the worldwide census; the birth in a manger, and the choir of angels; none of these is mentioned in Matthew.[58] Robert Joseph Miller considers the two accounts irreconcilable" Wikipedia
@isthechurchtrue "Historical-critical scholars generally conclude that Matthew and Luke were written by anonymous Christians writing after the fall of the Jewish temple in AD 70. Both used the Gospel of Mark and an inferred text called Q, but the birth narratives come from the evangelists' independent sources (known as M-Source for Matthew and L source for Luke). The birth narratives seem to be late additions to the gospel story, which would explain why they do not agree with each other." Wiki
@isthechurchtrue "The two accounts explain the birth in Bethlehem in contradictory ways and give two different genealogies of Jesus. The nativity stories are generally not looked at as primarily historical accounts with Vermes and Sanders dismissing them as completely fictional and Brown seeing them as constructed from historical traditions which predate the Gospels."
@isthechurchtrue "According to Brown, there is no uniform agreement among critical scholars on some details of the historicity discussions, e.g. most of those scholars who reject the historicity of the birth at Bethlehem argue for a birth at Nazareth, while suggestions as far away as Chorazin have been made."
@isthechurchtrue "Many scholars see a contradiction, in that while the Gospel of Matthew places Jesus' birth under the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, the Gospel of Luke also dates the birth ten years after Herod's death during the census of Quirinius, described by the historian Josephus.[45] Most critical scholars believe that Luke was simply mistaken"
@isthechurchtrue So what does all of these differences mean? There simply are too many differences, controversies and outright contradictions between the stories for any critical thinker to accept them without having serious doubts about the accuracy and the historicity of these stories.
Ockham's razor would suggest that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. The simplest explanation and reading is that one or both are incorrect. I would say both are fictional.
@isthechurchtrue And BTW, you have still not replied to my challenge to you to tell me the day and time of Jesus' death. Or is that problem even more difficult than the stories surrounding his birth?
Critics like you and Burkerow say that the original copies of the Gospels were written in Greek and that proves that they were written well after the time of Jesus & are are frauds.Most of your citicism is based on false premises. The entire Gospel of Luke (Luke 1:1-4) and the Book of Acts (Acts 1:1) were addressed to a Greek person who was learning about Christianity and so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the letter was written in Greek and so it is not evidence of fraud
@isthechurchtrue First off, you need to understand a little more about the "historical critical" method of reading the bible. Only then will you understand how scholars know that the gospels were originally written in Greek, not Aramaic which was the language of the apostles to whom the gospels have been attributed.
It is not critics like me and misterdeity; it's all well educated biblical scholars. Most are in agreement on this issue.
Maybe you misunderstand what I said.I said that Luke and Acts were clearly written in Greek because they were addressed to a Greek recipient.Also the authors of the New Testament could have used Greek because it was the most common language of the time, much like English is the most common language of our time.Non-English speakers have their works published in English because it is the most widely used language and thus will be more widely read.
@isthechurchtrue You are right, I have no idea what point you're trying to argue. We seem to agree the Gospels were written in Greek. No argument there. The question was who wrote the gospel?
I will reiterate. 1. They were anonymous when they first appeared on the scene nearly a generation after the death of Jesus. 2. The early Church father Papias (110-140 CE) attributed letters to Mark and Matthew and that developed a tradition. 3. The apostles spoke Aramaic and were illiterate.
@isthechurchtrue Most scholars agree the Gospels were written by anonymous greek speaking educated Christians who never knew Jesus or the apostles and probably never even lived in Palestine.
The apostle could not speak or write in Greek and were probably not living when the Gospels were written.
Just read some books on this subject and get a little education. This is not fringe information but most Christians don't hear this from the pulpit.......unfortunately.
The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that existed before the Christian era. Greek was the dominant language of the time (even before the birth of Jesus). This is proof that Greek was widely used and explains why the New Testament was written in Greek. Just because the New Testament was written in Greek does not mean that it was not written by Jews who witnessed the ministry of Jesus. The Gospels were written by scribes, translated, then published in Greek
You completely ignore passages like Luke 1:1-4 that clearly explains his purpose in writing his Gospel account.Luke says that many eyewitnesses to Jesus have made written accounts of what happened (these accounts have been lost),but that Luke also being an eyewitness has taken it upon himself to write his account to Theophilus (a Greek) that he may be convinced.It also states that Theophilus has already received lessons & that Luke's Gospel was a supplement to his previous learning
@isthechurchtrue Luke was not an eyewitness. No scholars even claim he was. What are you talking about. And you're forgetting that all of the Gospels are anonymous. We don't know who wrote them. The names were attached much later based on legend. On top of that, we now know just how crappy eye-witness accounts are. They are not reliable. And even more so in an age when people didn't know anything about the way the world worked -- where they believed in superstition, magic, and other nonsense.
The Virgin Birth, when it occurred, was an obscure event that only Joseph, Mary, and Jesus knew about. It is possible that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not tell people about it until after the resurrection of Jesus. Luke gives Mary's side of the story while Matthew gives Joseph's side of the story. None of the New Testament authors where there to witness the Virgin Birth so they were relying on statements from other people. The Gospel writers did not witness everything themselves.
The Virgin Birth, when it occurred, was an obscure event that only Joseph, Mary, and Jesus knew about. It is possible that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not tell people about it until after the resurrection of Jesus. Luke gives Mary's side of the story while Matthew gives Joseph's side of the story. None of the New Testament authors where there to witness the Virgin Birth so they were relying on statements from other people. The Gospel writers did not witness everything themselves.
You have to understand the timetable of how things happened.The authors of the New Testament did not know of the Virgin Birth until well after it happened.Even the 12 apostles were confused at times by what was happening until after the resurrection of Jesus.They were being taught the Gospel of Jesus during his life. All of the writings of the New Testament were written after the resurrection and they were recounting what they had experienced or heard with a new found understanding.
@isthechurchtrue Do you realize that not a word you wrote here is supported by anything but pure assumption? No one knows how any of it went down. You're assuming first that the Gospels portray an actual history rather than myth or legend. And then you keep multiplying assumption upon assumption. What do we know? Nothing, unless you accept a priori the Gospels as history, and there's simply not reason to do that. They don't get the historical elements right.
@JPSovereignStrikes I don't care if God exists. We can't know anything about such beings or anything about the supernatural. And there's nothing to refute anyway since God's existence is, in no way, established. If we had proof of such a thing, then there might be something to refute. But we don't.
@JPSovereignStrikes I agree. But it's not the Atheist's burden to prove something doesn't exist. If you make an extraordinary claim like, "there is a God," then it's your burden to prove that proposition with equally extraordinary evidence. That cannot be done. Which is why I said that I don't care if God exists -- because we are without any reliable methodology for determining His existence, His will, and His character. One theist says God wants x, another says He wants y. Who cares?
(1) is a knowledge claim and therefore requires justification. Now I think that you, as a weak atheist, would be prepared to offer some sort of case by way of justification for (1). You surely have some good reasons, but just not decisive reasons, for (1).
@proprodigySD I can’t offer a mathematical proof of God’s existence, but I think that the evidence for God’s existence makes the negation of (1) more probable than not.
Now when you assert (like Richard Dawkins) that “there is almsot certainly no god,” I regard that as an enormously strong assertion! You are saying that (1) is “almost certain.” You must have an extraordinarily strong case to justify such an assertion. This is a very strong atheism, indeed, and I’d like to hear the case for it.
@JPSovereignStrikes I don't think you do. There are mountains of evidence that replaces the phenomena of God with scientific fact and explanations. And God simply does not manifest in reality. I think there could be even better justifications and evidence, but you still wouldn't accept any of it as a proof that God might not still be out there. Do you want justification over the teapot orbiting space too? Nothing can satisfy the faith that an entity exists.
@proprodigySD there are many arguments that bear tremendous weight for belief in God as well. whats your the point. not everything can be verified by science.
@proprodigySD "weak atheist" is a term that is used for those that simply say that the burden of proof is solely on the christian, per se. its not an attack against you. i debate is a respectable manner.
What I am saying is that the writings of the New Testament were taken out of context when they were placed in the Bible. Each "Book" was actually a letter written to a specific group of people or person with a specific point to make. Thus they are not comprehensive. They could have been a response to a question that they were asked or tailored to the disbelief of a Jewish, Greek, or Roman community or group of people. Obviously many writings of early Christians were lost.
@isthechurchtrue Exactly. Again... all too human. And how do you know that these gospels are the right ones? How do you know that the right Gospels weren't lost for all time? Or that the right Gospels were the ones that had Jesus simply being a good preacher rather than God incarnate? Or, how do you know that Osiris or Dionysus weren't the real deal? Or anyone else for that matter. Perhaps everything about Jesus in the Gospels is true, but he was an agent of Satan. How do you know?
"If they didn't know about the compilation of various gospels,then they would generally want to be as comprehensive as possible"Are you suggesting that they should have acted on knowledge that they did not have?You are saying that they should have reacted to something that would happen 200 yrs after their lives.Also you act as if the New Testament contains all the writings they ever wrote about Jesus or Christianity.Maybe they did write more detailed accounts but we dont have them.
@isthechurchtrue That's exactly what I'm saying. If you're inspired by the Holy Ghost and people's eternal souls are riding on it, you include absolutely every little detail. You don't assume someone else will pick up the slack. What you're pointing out is how unbearably human all of this is. There's nothing transcendent about it -- just like the Hebrew Bible. As the story evolved into legend, they just added more and more BS, trying to make it fit what they thought were prophecies (Isaiah).
@isthechurchtrue "Are you suggesting that they should have acted on knowledge that they did not have?You are saying that they should have reacted to something that would happen.........."
You and every other fundamentalist Christian believe that God wrote the bible using his prophets and believers to do so. In other words, it's the "Word of God".
IF the Bible is truly the inspired word of God, why is much of it not intact?
It simply looks to me to be a fully human uninspired work.
The accounts of the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke agree. Show me where they do not agree. Your arguments are full of fallacies. For example: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! Just because we do not have evidence of a census does not mean that a census did not occur. Also just because someone does not mention something (like the Virgin Birth) that does no mean that they were unaware of it. You seem to think that it is funny to be ignorant. I don't think it is funny
I showed you where they don't agree a few days ago, in fact I showed a direct discrepancy between Matthew's version and Luke's, yet you have not offered a counter argument.
@isthechurchtrue 2 Here are some examples where lack of evidence should be reason to doubt the claim. The exodus of the Israelites from Egypt led by Moses. There's simply no extra biblical evidence of the exodus. No history of 3 million Israelite slaves in Egypt and no archeological evidence of the same 3 million wandering the wilderness for 40 years.
The Noahic flood is another case. If it did occur we should expect to have VERY good evidence......but none exist. That's reason to deny it
@isthechurchtrue 3 So IF there was a census, there would very likely be a record of it. IF King Herod ordered the slaughter of all male children around Bethlehem there should be a record of it.
And as I said in one of my earlier post, which you apparently did not read, IF Matthew is correct in saying Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, then Luke CAN'T also be correct that the birth occurred when Quirinius was the governor of Syria.
These are all reasons for skepticism of the story.
@isthechurchtrue You are just simply very good at pounding square pegs in round holes so you can remain in denial about the true historical Jesus.
He was no more than a failed apocalyptic Jewish rabbi, not much different than that nut case minister Harold Camping who "prophesied" the rapture and Judgment day on May 21st. Even his followers remain in denial.
You have to understand something before you can form an educated opinion about it.You don't even know what you are saying.Jesus of Nazareth is Jesus Christ, but just because he was called "of Nazareth" does not mean that he was born in Nazareth.He was born in Bethlehem (a.k.a. the City of David) as it says in Luke 2:1-7."not one of the four gospels agree to the circumstances of the birth of Jesus" You apparently don't even know that the birth of Jesus is not covered in all 4 gospels
Seems to me that the hypersensitive one is Mr. Deity. He really should reflect on MMM's comments. That sort of objection didn't register with me, either, until my daughters grew up and had to make their way in a world that objectifies them.
@mrrnr1956 Well, it just so happens that my 21-year-old daughter didn't think the guy did anything awful either, and thought Rebecca's condemnation was a bit broad (no pun intended). But she's really strong and can handle herself. She's a kick-ass chick!
@moonmonkeymama You think that's sexist you should see Mr. Deity and Da Man. A lot of these skits are really geared towards guys and we get it and think it's funny than hell.
Great thinking by Michael Shermer. For similar great skeptical thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Victor Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey, Joseph Wheless, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens
When were the gospels, or the Bible in general, ever inconsistent about the place where Jesus was born? It says in the Old and New Testament that he would be born in Bethlehem and it never deviates from that. It does say that Jesus would be born in the "City of David" but that is just another name for Bethlehem. That name goes back to King David in the Old Testament. It is not inconsistent on that point, maybe people got it confused with Jerusalem which is also called "City of David".
@isthechurchtrue I think he meant to say "when" instead of "where." And really? You're going to nitpick on this one? If you know the Jesus story at all, you know how many inconsistencies there are between the various gospel writers. Just look at the genealogies, or the message of the angel, or the virgin birth (which apparently is know to some of the gospel writers but not others). The point here was, there is all kinds of silliness going on. But you're right about the "where" part.
You falsely assume so much.Just because some of the Gospel writers don't mention the Virgin Birth does not mean that they were unaware of it.Each Gospel account was not written to be comprehensive and all inclusive history of Jesus or his teachings.Also you have to consider that the writers of the New Test. did not intend to have their writings bound together in the Bible.The Bible was created by Constantine with questionable motives about 200 years after the texts were written
@isthechurchtrue So the Virgin Birth (which was not predicted of the Messiah -- that was a mistranslation of Isaiah by Greek translators) was so theologically unimportant, that half the Gospel writers just decided to leave it out? Ridiculous. You point is backwards. If they didn't know about the compilation of various gospels, then they would generally want to be as comprehensive as possible -- especially when people's eternal souls were resting on the believability of these stories.
I have read the entire New Testament word for word so I have already done that. Your comment is so vague and meaningless it is hard to even address. Try using actual verses of the Bible to support your claim. For example Luke chapter 2 verses 1 to 7 says that the parents of Jesus traveled to Bethlehem were Jesus was born. I am sure the skeptic meant what he said. It just isn't a good objection as I have shown because the Bible is consistent about the place of the birth of Jesus.
@isthechurchtrue 1/2 "It says in the Old and New Testament that he would be born in Bethlehem and it never deviates from that."
In fact it does deviate from that. the OT says that the "King of the Jews" or "The anointed one" would come from the City of David, the city of King David and it was believed this "anointed one" was a mortal person not a deity. It was many years after the death of Jesus that the anonymous writers of the gospels (correct, we don't know who wrote the Gospels) cont.
@isthechurchtrue 2/2 cont. The anonymous writers of the Gospels attempted to posthumously place Jesus's birth in Bethlehem so as to "fit" the OT prophesies. Jesus and his family were from Nazareth, he was not born in Bethlehem.
By saying "the anonymous writers" you try to make it sound like the authors of the Gospels would not put their names on their work to try to hide their identity and thus making it sound like the Gospels came from an unreliable source.The authors of the Gospels were not anonymous and were known in their time.In fact in Luke1:3 it says who the letter was being sent to (Theophilus).Luke knew the recipient and was not trying to hide his identity.We know who wrote the Gospels of Luke & Mark
@isthechurchtrue Almost every student of college level bible courses learn that we don’t know who wrote most of the books of the New testament. Many many writings of the ancients were written pseudonymously or anonymously. Many letters that became the canon of the New Testament are no different. The earliest book written is usually agreed to be Mark, written between 35 and 40 years after the death of Jesus. However, we don’t even have the originals of any of the Gospels.
@isthechurchtrue 2 The earliest document ever discovered is a fragment of the book of Mark, about the size of a credit card with writing on both sides. It is dated about 150 years CE. That’s about 120 years after the death of Jesus. The earliest documents we have are copies of copies of copies, hand copied many times over with literally thousands of errors. The original writings were anonymous an early Church father Papias (110-140 CE) attributed letters to Mark and Matthew.
@isthechurchtrue 3 As far as we know the Apostles were illiterate. John is said to be “unlettered” (Acts 4:13). The apostles were Galilean Jews and would have spoken Aramaic. The overwhelming consensus among scholars of ancient linguistics is that the Gospels were originally authored in Greek, not Aramaic.The Gospels were probably written by highly educated, Greek-speaking Christians who probably lived outside Palestine and never knew or met Jesus and never even knew the Apostles.
@isthechurchtrue 4 Yes, you are correct that both authors agree Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but beyond that their stories are hardly in agreement. If the Jesus’ birth occurred during King Herod’s reign as in Matthew, then Juke cannot also be right when he said it happened when Quirinius was the governor of Syria. Most Roman historians eg Tacitus, Josephus and several others say that Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until 6 CE, ten years after the death of Herod.
@isthechurchtrue 5 Luke does not mention the “slaughter of the innocents” by decree from King Herod that Matthew talks about. In fact there is no historical account in any ancient source whatsoever about King Herod slaughtering children in or around Bethlehem, or anyplace else and no other author ever mentions the event. One needs to ask if the event ever happened. Luke also does not tell of Joseph fleeing to Egypt as depicted in Matthew, rather they quickly return to Nazareth.
@isthechurchtrue 6 All of these stories are contrived to “fit’ the story of Jesus with the prophecies of the coming Messiah. I’m not Jewish but these are just some of the reasons that most Jews don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.
The crucifixion of Christ is narrated in two Gospels, Mark and John. I’ll ask you to do some research. Tell me what day and what time of day Jesus died? The writers are very specific, but your answer will depend on which Gospel you read.
@isthechurchtrue 7 I promise this is the last but this is a very complicated subject, impossible to deal with here. There are several Biblical scholars that have written very good books for the general public about these things. Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong, or Bart Ehrman. I would recommend you read Ehrman’s book “Jesus Interrupted” since it is the source I used for most of this. His other book “Misquoting Jesus” is also very good.
@burkerow : You're right, the problem is WHERE to BEGIN!!
Let's put it this way : There are more inconsistencies in the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament.
And THAT'S just in the original Greek!! The english "translations" multiply that by seven or eight-fold.
And of course, these are NOT trivial inconsistencies, as most apologists claim. Most are serious, deeply disturbing, and they bring every part of the ministry of Jebus into utter doubt.
@burkerow Dude, this is a nice little piece of schooling you've done here. I'm thrilled to have people doing this work for me. Thanks a ton! You ROCK!
The text of the Bible is clear about where Jesus was born. In Luke 2:1-7 it explains how the parents of Jesus were visiting Bethlehem when Jesus was born. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem or that he was born in another place. Are you trying to say that someone added that part in long after it was written? How about offering some evidence for your claims.
@isthechurchtrue So then who is Jesus of NAZARETH ? ... the Nazarene ? there is no historical record of any census at the time nor any requirement that one must return to the city of birth to b counted ... the bible is full of LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES and even more DAMNED LIES ... lol
ps not one of the four gospels agree to the circumstances of the birth of jesus the alleged christ
I was just kind of curious about this, but in a universe where all the other god's exist, mr deity plays golf with zeus, why does he get to be the supreme authority in it? I love the series I just started thinking of it. I mean Mr. Deity wasn't even given permission to because he failed anger management.
I was right there with you and Mikey up until the "hot blonde" part. I'm new to your series - great concept, super funny - but prefer my humor *without* the side of sexism, thanks.
@moonmonkeymama Sexism? Really? The guy basically escapes Hell, and then is willing to trade it all in to be near a good-looking woman. That's not sexism. That's reality programing if I've ever seen it.
@misterdeity Really. Sexual objectification falls well within my definition of sexism. The "hot blonde" in this sketch is a prop, only of interest for the attributes of being hot and blonde. You are welcome to come up with your own definition of sexism. I'm letting you know mine here in this comments field; you're free to disagree. As a member of your audience, a woman, and a humor-loving atheist, I'm letting you know the point where your sketch stopped being funny....for me.
@moonmonkeymama Yeah, but I don't know why you think your hypersensitivity in this one area warrants anyone's attention. That you have this skid patch that keeps you from enjoying something is of no interest to anyone, and I'm always amazed at how people who have these overly sensitive areas think it should be of concern to everyone else. It's like telling someone you don't like their hair. What's the point? Enjoy what you enjoy and move on. It just seems narcissistic. Sorry.
@misterdeity actually, i agree with her about the "hot blond" part, but for a different reason; I prefer raven hair. Just like my wifeys! but other wise i agreed 100%. Although i would beg you sir, please please do not discourage ppl such as this from posting their babble on threads. Life can be boring, i need the humor.
@misterdeity I agree with you. This miserable culture of having an obsessive compulsive need to be offended (aka politically correctness) is purely narcissistic.
Women continue to use their sexuality to get what they want, and when they do, the only complaints come from the other women who were also trying but failed.
@moonmonkeymama I"m no fan of sexism either, but there are times when it really isn't actually sexism (btw, I also have lady-parts and identify as female, so don't you dare write me off as just another sexist man). So there's one character who wants some female attention... that doesn't really mean anything one way or the other. The Eve episode vexed me a little bit, but when i thought about it, there are women like that and I really really do hate them, so I was cool with it. Please chill out.
@moonmonkeymama I don't understand how mocking a religion isn't offensive to you, but a man thinking a woman with blonde hair is attractive is offensive. No one takes you seriously. Good luck on your soap box.
@moonmonkeymama Humor and fiction are some of the few places we can allude to these amusing flaws in ourselves, if anything the joke was self deprecating and made males look like knuckle dragging cave men. Your reaction seems to be one formed from an imaginary line in the sand you have made, and once it's been crossed you've deemed it warrants an attack. It appears what you're cradling as feminism is actually thinly veiled human tribalism, attacking the "other".
@moonmonkeymama You should concentrate less on the definition of "sexism" and allocate some of that brain power towards defining "closed mindedness". Sprinkle some of those brain cells on "shallow" while you're at it to add some depth.
Long story short, it's a friggen comedy. Spaghetti Monster Almighty... relax your sphincter woman! By the way, my money says Amy doesn't give two Unicorn God poo piles about the hot blonde comment. I'll be damned if she didn't know herself that she's beautiful.
@moonmonkeymama I would say the sexism was more geared toward the men in that they would cast logic aside in order to be with a hot blonde. So yes if your a man you may be a little offended. There was nothing sexist in the skit about women at all.
@moonmonkeymama "The 'hot blonde' in this sketch is a prop". Yup. Objectification of a woman. And to question whether MMM's "hypersensitivity in this one area warrants anyone's attention" is sad indeed. 50 years ago being offended by racist dehumanizing of blacks might be thought 'hypersensitive.' We advance socially when someone like MMM gives us pause to question our attitudes and habits. (I am male, by the way. Not that it should matter.)
@moonmonkeymama Except she's not a mere prop (she's not even in it). The whole point is that the Shermer character doesn't realize she's Lucifer. (And part of the gag is that after all that, he'd reconsider just for a passing attraction.) Finding someone sexually appealing is hardly sexism. Hell, it's how most romances begin! If he'd said Jesus was hot, would you also be calling it sexism? Now, if he'd said "That hot blonde must need help with science since she's a chick," that'd be sexist.
@moonmonkeymama I don't wanna pry in a private talk, but as a disinterested party, I would like to say that I am with mrdeity in this one. I have a really hard time getting (I am honestly curious to understand) how can a man showing interest in a good looking woman be sexist. is it the "hot blond"? Hard to see how that would be diminishing. The fact of the matter is that Lucy is a central - and very sensible - character throughout the series, AND just happens to - also - be a hot blond.
@dmf030 It's not a private talk...no worries. I'm new to the series and did not realize that "Lucy" is a central character. Anyhow, since my hypersensitivity in this area warrants no one's attention, I have nothing further to add to the conversation.
so, when i fantasize about female anatomy, i should feel guilty for objectifying women? lol..so, when i see a nice ass, i should either a) not sexually fantasize about it, or b) immediately start looking at the whole woman, and appreciate her mind along with her ass? but, this woman is a stranger, as most of the women men look at are. so, what do u suppose men should do? should we NOT be sexually attracted to female anatomy? and if we are, we should feel guilty?
How is it sexist when a man expresses attraction toward a woman with blonde hair (who is a stranger to him--so he couldn't praise anything about her behavior even if he'd wanted to), and uses the adjective "hot"? Do you consider the adjective "hot" condescending?
SUBSCRIBED
TheWiseGecko 23 hours ago
Who was the guy sitting next to Mr. Deity?
Tsteve08 2 weeks ago
@Tsteve08 Jesus...
HagarenXneko 1 day ago
@HagarenXneko Thanks...
Tsteve08 1 day ago
You know, I'd be interested to see Ray Comfort on the show.
GypsyLeah 1 month ago
@GypsyLeah I'd love to have him on. I actually think he'd do it. He seems like someone who can laugh at himself.
misterdeity 1 month ago
So, now that the great Christopher Hitchens has passed away, does that mean that Shermer gets to become one of the four horsemen?
Offspringfan64 1 month ago
@Offspringfan64 Yeah, who gets called up to the big leagues now? I think Michael's at the top of that list -- except he's much more of a consensus builder (one of the things I like about him). He generally won't tear into people or ideas like Hitch would There's no such thing as a Shermerslap. As for me, I will continue my role as one of the four Donkeymen.
misterdeity 1 month ago
@misterdeity I would pick Victor Stenger, Chris DiPaolo, or Michael Shermer. Just because Shermer isn't as confrontational as Hitch doesn't mean he wouldn't fit in. Dan Dennett hardly ever debates because it isn't his specialty. Besides, Sam Harris is an absolute wrecking ball to faith anyway.
nkennedy09 3 weeks ago
@Offspringfan64 I think Matt Dillahunty should take Hitch's place, personally.
itstonymacaroni 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Offspringfan64 1 month ago
Dwell in non-existence, Mr. Hitchens. You've saved so many of us...
DirectInjected 1 month ago
Dr. Michael Shermer did a great job. It was interesting to see he once believed in religion.
Ionizap 1 month ago
I am a fan and follower of Dr. Shermer's, so i had an idea what he would say on the subject and I was still pretty impressed. Well done.
Ch1nn1s 1 month ago
are you theist or atheist???
moophitozzy 2 months ago
@moophitozzy I am in league with Christopher Hitchens who calls himself and anti-theist. Atheism simply means that you are without a belief in God or gods. I go a bit further by being opposed to the very idea of theism -- mainly because I believe the idea has done (and continues to do) untold damage to the human race.
misterdeity 1 month ago
@misterdeity Just wanted to say I love the work you all do. Religious satire is my favorite genre of comedy. I was a little intrigued reading you're anti-theist though, considering theism provides so much great comedic material. Do you not enjoy your work? Is this a duty for you? Like the league militant atheists professionally lampooned and ridiculed religious people in the USSR last century. Regardless of your motivations and beliefs, thanks for the merriment. I'll be donating :)
TheAgnosticPantheist 1 month ago
@TheAgnosticPantheist I think the only reason religion has survived so long (and so well) is because they have gotten a free pass -- no one has dared to go after them to expose their silliness. In that regard, I do feel some kind of duty as I think the principles of religion have done the single greatest harm to humanity. But really, it's just a great find that has been mined by so few. If it hadn't been religion, it would be the other "r" word -- republicans.
misterdeity 1 month ago
@misterdeity No one has dared to expose them for their silliness? The earliest depiction of Christ we have is a man on a cross with a donkey's head. Please I hope you don't think I'm defending such institutions and their atrocities. During inquisitions people like us were burned at the stake. These faith based organizations are like any other organic construct. If they don't adapt to changing environments they wither and die. I just hope the silliness continues for your career sake.
TheAgnosticPantheist 1 month ago
@misterdeity How do you feel about pantheism? :p
MarmaladeMonster 1 month ago
@MarmaladeMonster I don't think there's a point to any "theism." It's just more speculation about stuff no on should be worrying about.
misterdeity 1 month ago
@misterdeity Pantheist belief usually lacks any conscious deity. Panentheism is the universe as a conscious deity. Blah Greek... So Pantheists don't leave you with a role to play. The point is easy to miss because it's all around us and it is you! You're the point, just as I am. Just as our Sun is the point, everything was/is the point. I like the 4 donkey men of the apocalypse. If there's not a skit on that there should be.I have no worries for the rest of my days. Hakuna Matata :P
TheAgnosticPantheist 3 weeks ago
The religious tendency is part of human nature, so even skeptics are vulnerable to thinking in a religious way about their skepticism. I see this often. They stray from objectivity and become fervent and zealous and refer to Dawkins, Randi, and others as if these men were some kind of gurus or something.
ericjungleboy 2 months ago
@ericjungleboy Well, that was vague.
misterdeity 2 months ago
@ericjungleboy I think more than simply a "religious tendency" it's a general tendency to form hierarchy and foster submission which is in fact encouraged by most societal institutions such as family, school and the workplace. Ridding oneself of supernatural authority is not enough to free oneself from the mental constraints of the many other arbitrary authoritarian institutions in society, though it is an important step of that process.
DonVoghano 2 months ago
this makes me nauseous
DIEZAUBERFLOTEMENSCH 2 months ago
@DIEZAUBERFLOTEMENSCH Yeah, some people need to take a diezauberflotemensch pill before watching.
misterdeity 2 months ago
@misterdeity I know what Skepticism is... but I don't really get this... :(
moophitozzy 1 month ago
@moophitozzy That's okay. It's not for everyone. Thanks. B
misterdeity 1 month ago
Hey Mr. Deity, try islam for a change!
You could call yourself Sir. Allah instead!
That would be fun! No?
ausonius100 2 months ago
@ausonius100 We did a couple of Allah episodes in season four. Check 'em out!
misterdeity 2 months ago
@misterdeity
Ok, I will! Thanks
ausonius100 2 months ago
this is an awesome series
otters72 3 months ago
well..interesting choice of notes..for sure.!
bakersfieldmusicnow 3 months ago
they should do a followup on what the Skeptic is doing now.
wolgreth 3 months ago
how exactly did the universe come into exist?
JPSovereignStrikes 4 months ago
@JPSovereignStrikes *existence...sorry. btw, i really do think that youre very funny. your videos are very entertaining.
JPSovereignStrikes 4 months ago
@JPSovereignStrikes I don't know, and neither do you. But "I don't know" doesn't mean that we need to assume something more. It just means that we don't know. Unless, of course, you want to make an argument from ignorance (which , I suspect, you do).
misterdeity 3 months ago
@JPSovereignStrikes
Whether or not we can answer the question of how the Universe came into existence is irrelevant. If we don't know something, then the conversation is over. Any explanation like 'God' stated after the admittance of ignorance is nothing more than a worthless explanation that will never suit a greater purpose other than for comfort. Humans are hardwired to seek comfort. if the conflict is to choose between comfort and truth, the brain usually chooses comfort.
DanieltheSkeptic 3 months ago
@JPSovereignStrikes
Besides, you can't provide evidence for something that doesn't exist. In this case, I'm using the common meaning of the word 'Existence' which means the world that exists through our senses. God, by definition is beyond existence I:E the physical universe. Now you are correction on saying that "there is no god" is a positive assertion, but it doesn't need to be justified, and here's why. (next post)
DanieltheSkeptic 3 months ago
@JPSovereignStrikes
Unprovable concepts invented by humans are commonly stated to be superstition and be non-existent. Everything from fairies, to dragons, to ghosts and ghouls, to bigfoot, and nessy; hell, even Santa Claus. If you want a Strong Atheist to prove one of these concepts false, then all concepts like these must also be proven false. Belief in one of these is enough to give them credence beyond other "silly" beliefs you don't believe in.
DanieltheSkeptic 3 months ago
Jesus is fucking sexy
PirateMonkeyFilmz 4 months ago
what in my name were you thinking?
beksinski 4 months ago
I bet Michael Shermer knows those lines well. xD
Tanoro 4 months ago in playlist More videos from misterdeity
Hahaha funny video guys. Praise the JuJu under the mountain
boyd1876 4 months ago
So he's a smart ass. Very clever, skepto-man. lol
Agaricocrinus 4 months ago
BRILLIANT!!! by the way, mike, way to sell out your friends on the "sinner's prayer" thing...
qwyzl 4 months ago
It's kinda scary seeing a super-star Agnostic like Dr. Shermer trying to talk his way out of hell =P
But I guess if the devil really was as pretty as "Lucy" then who would wanna go to heaven =D
great vid b.t.w
TheAnybody13 4 months ago
@burkerow
The "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is the name of a fallacy.Arguments from ignorance draw a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities.A fallacy that you have used over and over again.You do not understand the Bible.You claimed that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem because it says he was born in "The City of David" (Luke 2:4) even after I said that The City of David was another name for Bethlehem.You show your ignorance
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue You really don't read my comments very carefully do you?
I never claimed that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem becaus it says he was born in the "City of David". Go back and reread what I wrote.
I said that both authors have Jesus born in Bethlehem and I am fully aware of the name "City of David" as another name for Bethlehem.
Beyond the birthplace there is little else in the two stories that agree, as I tried to outline for you.
burkerow 4 months ago
@burkerow
I read all your comments.I said "It says in the Old and New Testament that he would be born in Bethlehem and it never deviates from that."
You replied "In fact it does deviate from that. the OT says that the "King of the Jews" or "The anointed one" would come from the City of David""
Now you are resorting to complete dishonesty.This is very telling of how intellectually dishonest you are & how you will apparently resort to any dishonest trick or lie to make your argument seem correct
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue I also said the following.
"Yes, you are correct that both authors agree Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but beyond that their stories are hardly in agreement"
I apologize that I may have misled you. I know what the OT says about the coming Messiah. My point was to say that the writers of Matthew and Luke created the stories to "fit" the prophecies. I understand that you can't conceive of that happening, and that's why I tried to point out all the variances in their stories.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue Rather than address the issues of contention you keep dodging them by using Ad Hominem and straw men attacks, if you want to be pedantic about logical fallacies.
Please stick to the debate and address the discrepancies that I've pointed out to you.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue I will reiterate,"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is being used by you incorrectly. In many cases absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when evidence should be expected.
I'll give another example for you here.
Luke tells of the census ordered by Augustus. We have very good records from the emperors' reign and there is no mention of such a census. Does that mean it absolutely did not happen? No. But it is reason for having doubt about the claim.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue So Luke has the family living in Nazareth and traveling to Bethlehem for the census and Matthew has them living in Bethlehem prior to the birth.
Luke also does not tell of Joseph fleeing to Egypt as depicted in Matthew, rather they quickly return to Nazareth.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue I don't usually use Wikipedia as the most authoritative source, but for simplicity sake I will cut and past a few comments to you, so maybe you can understand some of my points. But please, get a good book on the critical method of reading the bible and learn some of this yourself.
"The birth narratives have been considered problematic by a number of critical scholars particularly because they are laced with theology and are indebted to precursor texts.[7]"
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue "The Gospel of Matthew relates the appearance of an angel, in a dream, to Joseph; the wise men from the east; the massacre of the innocents; and the flight to Egypt. The Gospel of Luke mentions none of these but describes the conception and birth of Jesus; the appearance of an angel to Mary; the worldwide census; the birth in a manger, and the choir of angels; none of these is mentioned in Matthew.[58] Robert Joseph Miller considers the two accounts irreconcilable" Wikipedia
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue "Historical-critical scholars generally conclude that Matthew and Luke were written by anonymous Christians writing after the fall of the Jewish temple in AD 70. Both used the Gospel of Mark and an inferred text called Q, but the birth narratives come from the evangelists' independent sources (known as M-Source for Matthew and L source for Luke). The birth narratives seem to be late additions to the gospel story, which would explain why they do not agree with each other." Wiki
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue "The two accounts explain the birth in Bethlehem in contradictory ways and give two different genealogies of Jesus. The nativity stories are generally not looked at as primarily historical accounts with Vermes and Sanders dismissing them as completely fictional and Brown seeing them as constructed from historical traditions which predate the Gospels."
Wikipedia
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue "According to Brown, there is no uniform agreement among critical scholars on some details of the historicity discussions, e.g. most of those scholars who reject the historicity of the birth at Bethlehem argue for a birth at Nazareth, while suggestions as far away as Chorazin have been made."
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue "Many scholars see a contradiction, in that while the Gospel of Matthew places Jesus' birth under the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, the Gospel of Luke also dates the birth ten years after Herod's death during the census of Quirinius, described by the historian Josephus.[45] Most critical scholars believe that Luke was simply mistaken"
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue So what does all of these differences mean? There simply are too many differences, controversies and outright contradictions between the stories for any critical thinker to accept them without having serious doubts about the accuracy and the historicity of these stories.
Ockham's razor would suggest that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. The simplest explanation and reading is that one or both are incorrect. I would say both are fictional.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue And BTW, you have still not replied to my challenge to you to tell me the day and time of Jesus' death. Or is that problem even more difficult than the stories surrounding his birth?
burkerow 4 months ago
@misterdeity
Critics like you and Burkerow say that the original copies of the Gospels were written in Greek and that proves that they were written well after the time of Jesus & are are frauds.Most of your citicism is based on false premises. The entire Gospel of Luke (Luke 1:1-4) and the Book of Acts (Acts 1:1) were addressed to a Greek person who was learning about Christianity and so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the letter was written in Greek and so it is not evidence of fraud
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue First off, you need to understand a little more about the "historical critical" method of reading the bible. Only then will you understand how scholars know that the gospels were originally written in Greek, not Aramaic which was the language of the apostles to whom the gospels have been attributed.
It is not critics like me and misterdeity; it's all well educated biblical scholars. Most are in agreement on this issue.
burkerow 4 months ago
@burkerow
Maybe you misunderstand what I said.I said that Luke and Acts were clearly written in Greek because they were addressed to a Greek recipient.Also the authors of the New Testament could have used Greek because it was the most common language of the time, much like English is the most common language of our time.Non-English speakers have their works published in English because it is the most widely used language and thus will be more widely read.
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue You are right, I have no idea what point you're trying to argue. We seem to agree the Gospels were written in Greek. No argument there. The question was who wrote the gospel?
I will reiterate. 1. They were anonymous when they first appeared on the scene nearly a generation after the death of Jesus. 2. The early Church father Papias (110-140 CE) attributed letters to Mark and Matthew and that developed a tradition. 3. The apostles spoke Aramaic and were illiterate.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue Most scholars agree the Gospels were written by anonymous greek speaking educated Christians who never knew Jesus or the apostles and probably never even lived in Palestine.
The apostle could not speak or write in Greek and were probably not living when the Gospels were written.
Just read some books on this subject and get a little education. This is not fringe information but most Christians don't hear this from the pulpit.......unfortunately.
burkerow 4 months ago
@burkerow
The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that existed before the Christian era. Greek was the dominant language of the time (even before the birth of Jesus). This is proof that Greek was widely used and explains why the New Testament was written in Greek. Just because the New Testament was written in Greek does not mean that it was not written by Jews who witnessed the ministry of Jesus. The Gospels were written by scribes, translated, then published in Greek
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@misterdeity
You completely ignore passages like Luke 1:1-4 that clearly explains his purpose in writing his Gospel account.Luke says that many eyewitnesses to Jesus have made written accounts of what happened (these accounts have been lost),but that Luke also being an eyewitness has taken it upon himself to write his account to Theophilus (a Greek) that he may be convinced.It also states that Theophilus has already received lessons & that Luke's Gospel was a supplement to his previous learning
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue Luke was not an eyewitness. No scholars even claim he was. What are you talking about. And you're forgetting that all of the Gospels are anonymous. We don't know who wrote them. The names were attached much later based on legend. On top of that, we now know just how crappy eye-witness accounts are. They are not reliable. And even more so in an age when people didn't know anything about the way the world worked -- where they believed in superstition, magic, and other nonsense.
misterdeity 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue - (these accounts have been lost) So, what, the dog ate his paper?
cdhanks 4 months ago
@misterdeity
The Virgin Birth, when it occurred, was an obscure event that only Joseph, Mary, and Jesus knew about. It is possible that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not tell people about it until after the resurrection of Jesus. Luke gives Mary's side of the story while Matthew gives Joseph's side of the story. None of the New Testament authors where there to witness the Virgin Birth so they were relying on statements from other people. The Gospel writers did not witness everything themselves.
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@misterdeity
The Virgin Birth, when it occurred, was an obscure event that only Joseph, Mary, and Jesus knew about. It is possible that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not tell people about it until after the resurrection of Jesus. Luke gives Mary's side of the story while Matthew gives Joseph's side of the story. None of the New Testament authors where there to witness the Virgin Birth so they were relying on statements from other people. The Gospel writers did not witness everything themselves.
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@misterdeity
You have to understand the timetable of how things happened.The authors of the New Testament did not know of the Virgin Birth until well after it happened.Even the 12 apostles were confused at times by what was happening until after the resurrection of Jesus.They were being taught the Gospel of Jesus during his life. All of the writings of the New Testament were written after the resurrection and they were recounting what they had experienced or heard with a new found understanding.
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue Do you realize that not a word you wrote here is supported by anything but pure assumption? No one knows how any of it went down. You're assuming first that the Gospels portray an actual history rather than myth or legend. And then you keep multiplying assumption upon assumption. What do we know? Nothing, unless you accept a priori the Gospels as history, and there's simply not reason to do that. They don't get the historical elements right.
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterdeity what can you prove to refute the claims of God's existence?
JPSovereignStrikes 4 months ago
@JPSovereignStrikes I don't care if God exists. We can't know anything about such beings or anything about the supernatural. And there's nothing to refute anyway since God's existence is, in no way, established. If we had proof of such a thing, then there might be something to refute. But we don't.
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterdeity The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And
here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would
require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain
this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of
the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of
the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike
characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes
these special abilities.
JPSovereignStrikes 4 months ago
@JPSovereignStrikes I agree. But it's not the Atheist's burden to prove something doesn't exist. If you make an extraordinary claim like, "there is a God," then it's your burden to prove that proposition with equally extraordinary evidence. That cannot be done. Which is why I said that I don't care if God exists -- because we are without any reliable methodology for determining His existence, His will, and His character. One theist says God wants x, another says He wants y. Who cares?
misterdeity 3 months ago
@misterdeity The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is
therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed
out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self-
defeating proposition.
JPSovereignStrikes 4 months ago
@JPSovereignStrikes Always and forever, burden of proof is not on the atheist. Here:
Theist, Existence of the Universe=+1 There is a universe and there is God, who made it.
Atheist, Existence of the Universe=0 Yes, a universe exists.
Atheists have nothing to prove. Theists on the other hand, much account for where exactly the +1 comes from.
proprodigySD 4 months ago
@proprodigySD (1) there is no god.
(1) is a knowledge claim and therefore requires justification. Now I think that you, as a weak atheist, would be prepared to offer some sort of case by way of justification for (1). You surely have some good reasons, but just not decisive reasons, for (1).
JPSovereignStrikes 4 months ago
@proprodigySD I can’t offer a mathematical proof of God’s existence, but I think that the evidence for God’s existence makes the negation of (1) more probable than not.
Now when you assert (like Richard Dawkins) that “there is almsot certainly no god,” I regard that as an enormously strong assertion! You are saying that (1) is “almost certain.” You must have an extraordinarily strong case to justify such an assertion. This is a very strong atheism, indeed, and I’d like to hear the case for it.
JPSovereignStrikes 4 months ago
@JPSovereignStrikes I don't think you do. There are mountains of evidence that replaces the phenomena of God with scientific fact and explanations. And God simply does not manifest in reality. I think there could be even better justifications and evidence, but you still wouldn't accept any of it as a proof that God might not still be out there. Do you want justification over the teapot orbiting space too? Nothing can satisfy the faith that an entity exists.
proprodigySD 4 months ago
@proprodigySD there are many arguments that bear tremendous weight for belief in God as well. whats your the point. not everything can be verified by science.
JPSovereignStrikes 4 months ago
@proprodigySD "weak atheist" is a term that is used for those that simply say that the burden of proof is solely on the christian, per se. its not an attack against you. i debate is a respectable manner.
JPSovereignStrikes 4 months ago
@misterdeity
What I am saying is that the writings of the New Testament were taken out of context when they were placed in the Bible. Each "Book" was actually a letter written to a specific group of people or person with a specific point to make. Thus they are not comprehensive. They could have been a response to a question that they were asked or tailored to the disbelief of a Jewish, Greek, or Roman community or group of people. Obviously many writings of early Christians were lost.
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue Exactly. Again... all too human. And how do you know that these gospels are the right ones? How do you know that the right Gospels weren't lost for all time? Or that the right Gospels were the ones that had Jesus simply being a good preacher rather than God incarnate? Or, how do you know that Osiris or Dionysus weren't the real deal? Or anyone else for that matter. Perhaps everything about Jesus in the Gospels is true, but he was an agent of Satan. How do you know?
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterdeity i wish Mr Sherman could have shown the inconsistency he claims.
JPSovereignStrikes 4 months ago
@misterdeity
"If they didn't know about the compilation of various gospels,then they would generally want to be as comprehensive as possible"Are you suggesting that they should have acted on knowledge that they did not have?You are saying that they should have reacted to something that would happen 200 yrs after their lives.Also you act as if the New Testament contains all the writings they ever wrote about Jesus or Christianity.Maybe they did write more detailed accounts but we dont have them.
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue That's exactly what I'm saying. If you're inspired by the Holy Ghost and people's eternal souls are riding on it, you include absolutely every little detail. You don't assume someone else will pick up the slack. What you're pointing out is how unbearably human all of this is. There's nothing transcendent about it -- just like the Hebrew Bible. As the story evolved into legend, they just added more and more BS, trying to make it fit what they thought were prophecies (Isaiah).
misterdeity 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue "Are you suggesting that they should have acted on knowledge that they did not have?You are saying that they should have reacted to something that would happen.........."
You and every other fundamentalist Christian believe that God wrote the bible using his prophets and believers to do so. In other words, it's the "Word of God".
IF the Bible is truly the inspired word of God, why is much of it not intact?
It simply looks to me to be a fully human uninspired work.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue Sorry, I just now read misterdeity's comment to you, which says basically the same thing I did.
burkerow 4 months ago
@serephim56
The accounts of the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke agree. Show me where they do not agree. Your arguments are full of fallacies. For example: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! Just because we do not have evidence of a census does not mean that a census did not occur. Also just because someone does not mention something (like the Virgin Birth) that does no mean that they were unaware of it. You seem to think that it is funny to be ignorant. I don't think it is funny
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@isthechurchtrue "Show me where they do not agree."
I showed you where they don't agree a few days ago, in fact I showed a direct discrepancy between Matthew's version and Luke's, yet you have not offered a counter argument.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue 1 "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"
This quote, as I understand originated with Carl Sagan when he was referring to extraterrestrial life.
William Lane Craig has frequently used it in his arguments attempting to prove the existence of God.
But you use it incorrectly here. Sometimes absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
cont. next post
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue 2 Here are some examples where lack of evidence should be reason to doubt the claim. The exodus of the Israelites from Egypt led by Moses. There's simply no extra biblical evidence of the exodus. No history of 3 million Israelite slaves in Egypt and no archeological evidence of the same 3 million wandering the wilderness for 40 years.
The Noahic flood is another case. If it did occur we should expect to have VERY good evidence......but none exist. That's reason to deny it
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue 3 So IF there was a census, there would very likely be a record of it. IF King Herod ordered the slaughter of all male children around Bethlehem there should be a record of it.
And as I said in one of my earlier post, which you apparently did not read, IF Matthew is correct in saying Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, then Luke CAN'T also be correct that the birth occurred when Quirinius was the governor of Syria.
These are all reasons for skepticism of the story.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue You are just simply very good at pounding square pegs in round holes so you can remain in denial about the true historical Jesus.
He was no more than a failed apocalyptic Jewish rabbi, not much different than that nut case minister Harold Camping who "prophesied" the rapture and Judgment day on May 21st. Even his followers remain in denial.
burkerow 4 months ago
@serephim56
You have to understand something before you can form an educated opinion about it.You don't even know what you are saying.Jesus of Nazareth is Jesus Christ, but just because he was called "of Nazareth" does not mean that he was born in Nazareth.He was born in Bethlehem (a.k.a. the City of David) as it says in Luke 2:1-7."not one of the four gospels agree to the circumstances of the birth of Jesus" You apparently don't even know that the birth of Jesus is not covered in all 4 gospels
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
Seems to me that the hypersensitive one is Mr. Deity. He really should reflect on MMM's comments. That sort of objection didn't register with me, either, until my daughters grew up and had to make their way in a world that objectifies them.
mrrnr1956 4 months ago
@mrrnr1956 Well, it just so happens that my 21-year-old daughter didn't think the guy did anything awful either, and thought Rebecca's condemnation was a bit broad (no pun intended). But she's really strong and can handle herself. She's a kick-ass chick!
misterdeity 4 months ago
@moonmonkeymama You think that's sexist you should see Mr. Deity and Da Man. A lot of these skits are really geared towards guys and we get it and think it's funny than hell.
NeoTheo2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great thinking by Michael Shermer. For similar great skeptical thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Victor Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey, Joseph Wheless, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens
zytigon 4 months ago
This is brilliant
annata12 5 months ago
hahaha! this is so funny! i loove this!!!!!!!!
SquirrelGoneBananas 5 months ago
Very funny stuck. Great episode and very good answers from the Skeptic.
clipsryan 5 months ago
At 2:40
When were the gospels, or the Bible in general, ever inconsistent about the place where Jesus was born? It says in the Old and New Testament that he would be born in Bethlehem and it never deviates from that. It does say that Jesus would be born in the "City of David" but that is just another name for Bethlehem. That name goes back to King David in the Old Testament. It is not inconsistent on that point, maybe people got it confused with Jerusalem which is also called "City of David".
isthechurchtrue 5 months ago
@isthechurchtrue I think he meant to say "when" instead of "where." And really? You're going to nitpick on this one? If you know the Jesus story at all, you know how many inconsistencies there are between the various gospel writers. Just look at the genealogies, or the message of the angel, or the virgin birth (which apparently is know to some of the gospel writers but not others). The point here was, there is all kinds of silliness going on. But you're right about the "where" part.
misterdeity 5 months ago
@misterdeity
You falsely assume so much.Just because some of the Gospel writers don't mention the Virgin Birth does not mean that they were unaware of it.Each Gospel account was not written to be comprehensive and all inclusive history of Jesus or his teachings.Also you have to consider that the writers of the New Test. did not intend to have their writings bound together in the Bible.The Bible was created by Constantine with questionable motives about 200 years after the texts were written
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue So the Virgin Birth (which was not predicted of the Messiah -- that was a mistranslation of Isaiah by Greek translators) was so theologically unimportant, that half the Gospel writers just decided to leave it out? Ridiculous. You point is backwards. If they didn't know about the compilation of various gospels, then they would generally want to be as comprehensive as possible -- especially when people's eternal souls were resting on the believability of these stories.
misterdeity 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue He meant what he said. Go read the individual gospels accounts of Jesus' birth and come back once you've learned something.
morrowrail 5 months ago
@morrowrail
I have read the entire New Testament word for word so I have already done that. Your comment is so vague and meaningless it is hard to even address. Try using actual verses of the Bible to support your claim. For example Luke chapter 2 verses 1 to 7 says that the parents of Jesus traveled to Bethlehem were Jesus was born. I am sure the skeptic meant what he said. It just isn't a good objection as I have shown because the Bible is consistent about the place of the birth of Jesus.
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue 1/2 "It says in the Old and New Testament that he would be born in Bethlehem and it never deviates from that."
In fact it does deviate from that. the OT says that the "King of the Jews" or "The anointed one" would come from the City of David, the city of King David and it was believed this "anointed one" was a mortal person not a deity. It was many years after the death of Jesus that the anonymous writers of the gospels (correct, we don't know who wrote the Gospels) cont.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue 2/2 cont. The anonymous writers of the Gospels attempted to posthumously place Jesus's birth in Bethlehem so as to "fit" the OT prophesies. Jesus and his family were from Nazareth, he was not born in Bethlehem.
burkerow 4 months ago
@burkerow
By saying "the anonymous writers" you try to make it sound like the authors of the Gospels would not put their names on their work to try to hide their identity and thus making it sound like the Gospels came from an unreliable source.The authors of the Gospels were not anonymous and were known in their time.In fact in Luke1:3 it says who the letter was being sent to (Theophilus).Luke knew the recipient and was not trying to hide his identity.We know who wrote the Gospels of Luke & Mark
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue Almost every student of college level bible courses learn that we don’t know who wrote most of the books of the New testament. Many many writings of the ancients were written pseudonymously or anonymously. Many letters that became the canon of the New Testament are no different. The earliest book written is usually agreed to be Mark, written between 35 and 40 years after the death of Jesus. However, we don’t even have the originals of any of the Gospels.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue 2 The earliest document ever discovered is a fragment of the book of Mark, about the size of a credit card with writing on both sides. It is dated about 150 years CE. That’s about 120 years after the death of Jesus. The earliest documents we have are copies of copies of copies, hand copied many times over with literally thousands of errors. The original writings were anonymous an early Church father Papias (110-140 CE) attributed letters to Mark and Matthew.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue 3 As far as we know the Apostles were illiterate. John is said to be “unlettered” (Acts 4:13). The apostles were Galilean Jews and would have spoken Aramaic. The overwhelming consensus among scholars of ancient linguistics is that the Gospels were originally authored in Greek, not Aramaic.The Gospels were probably written by highly educated, Greek-speaking Christians who probably lived outside Palestine and never knew or met Jesus and never even knew the Apostles.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue 4 Yes, you are correct that both authors agree Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but beyond that their stories are hardly in agreement. If the Jesus’ birth occurred during King Herod’s reign as in Matthew, then Juke cannot also be right when he said it happened when Quirinius was the governor of Syria. Most Roman historians eg Tacitus, Josephus and several others say that Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until 6 CE, ten years after the death of Herod.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue 5 Luke does not mention the “slaughter of the innocents” by decree from King Herod that Matthew talks about. In fact there is no historical account in any ancient source whatsoever about King Herod slaughtering children in or around Bethlehem, or anyplace else and no other author ever mentions the event. One needs to ask if the event ever happened. Luke also does not tell of Joseph fleeing to Egypt as depicted in Matthew, rather they quickly return to Nazareth.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue 6 All of these stories are contrived to “fit’ the story of Jesus with the prophecies of the coming Messiah. I’m not Jewish but these are just some of the reasons that most Jews don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.
The crucifixion of Christ is narrated in two Gospels, Mark and John. I’ll ask you to do some research. Tell me what day and what time of day Jesus died? The writers are very specific, but your answer will depend on which Gospel you read.
burkerow 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue 7 I promise this is the last but this is a very complicated subject, impossible to deal with here. There are several Biblical scholars that have written very good books for the general public about these things. Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong, or Bart Ehrman. I would recommend you read Ehrman’s book “Jesus Interrupted” since it is the source I used for most of this. His other book “Misquoting Jesus” is also very good.
burkerow 4 months ago
@burkerow : You're right, the problem is WHERE to BEGIN!!
Let's put it this way : There are more inconsistencies in the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament.
And THAT'S just in the original Greek!! The english "translations" multiply that by seven or eight-fold.
And of course, these are NOT trivial inconsistencies, as most apologists claim. Most are serious, deeply disturbing, and they bring every part of the ministry of Jebus into utter doubt.
CephasBorg 4 months ago
@burkerow Dude, this is a nice little piece of schooling you've done here. I'm thrilled to have people doing this work for me. Thanks a ton! You ROCK!
misterdeity 4 months ago
@burkerow
The text of the Bible is clear about where Jesus was born. In Luke 2:1-7 it explains how the parents of Jesus were visiting Bethlehem when Jesus was born. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem or that he was born in another place. Are you trying to say that someone added that part in long after it was written? How about offering some evidence for your claims.
isthechurchtrue 4 months ago
@isthechurchtrue So then who is Jesus of NAZARETH ? ... the Nazarene ? there is no historical record of any census at the time nor any requirement that one must return to the city of birth to b counted ... the bible is full of LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES and even more DAMNED LIES ... lol
ps not one of the four gospels agree to the circumstances of the birth of jesus the alleged christ
serephim56 4 months ago
Man i busted up in tears laughing when he turned to his son: "Well it's up to you, what do you think, i mean you hanging up there on the cross."
HoBustinJopson 5 months ago
These are very good. I like that Jesus is wearing a cross.
Zzeak 6 months ago
@Zzeak as opposed to the cross wearing Jesus?
DHCopeland 5 months ago
I was just kind of curious about this, but in a universe where all the other god's exist, mr deity plays golf with zeus, why does he get to be the supreme authority in it? I love the series I just started thinking of it. I mean Mr. Deity wasn't even given permission to because he failed anger management.
Azrael666Azazel 6 months ago
From a Christian...
This is actually pretty funny.
dex1391 6 months ago
What's tattooed on Jessy's arm?
busterpiggle 6 months ago
Just got a link from a Facebook posting. Funny, clever, provocative stuff.
maxfrederickson 6 months ago
This is awesome lol
TheArcaneSanctum 6 months ago
I was right there with you and Mikey up until the "hot blonde" part. I'm new to your series - great concept, super funny - but prefer my humor *without* the side of sexism, thanks.
moonmonkeymama 7 months ago
@moonmonkeymama Sexism? Really? The guy basically escapes Hell, and then is willing to trade it all in to be near a good-looking woman. That's not sexism. That's reality programing if I've ever seen it.
misterdeity 6 months ago
@misterdeity Really. Sexual objectification falls well within my definition of sexism. The "hot blonde" in this sketch is a prop, only of interest for the attributes of being hot and blonde. You are welcome to come up with your own definition of sexism. I'm letting you know mine here in this comments field; you're free to disagree. As a member of your audience, a woman, and a humor-loving atheist, I'm letting you know the point where your sketch stopped being funny....for me.
moonmonkeymama 6 months ago
@moonmonkeymama Yeah, but I don't know why you think your hypersensitivity in this one area warrants anyone's attention. That you have this skid patch that keeps you from enjoying something is of no interest to anyone, and I'm always amazed at how people who have these overly sensitive areas think it should be of concern to everyone else. It's like telling someone you don't like their hair. What's the point? Enjoy what you enjoy and move on. It just seems narcissistic. Sorry.
misterdeity 6 months ago
@misterdeity Amen!
JerryOnDrums 6 months ago
@misterdeity ::::runs off to blog about mr.deitygate:::
kapwns 6 months ago
@misterdeity actually, i agree with her about the "hot blond" part, but for a different reason; I prefer raven hair. Just like my wifeys! but other wise i agreed 100%. Although i would beg you sir, please please do not discourage ppl such as this from posting their babble on threads. Life can be boring, i need the humor.
TexasJamesC 5 months ago
@misterdeity What a good answer.
supahsekzy 5 months ago
@misterdeity I agree with you. This miserable culture of having an obsessive compulsive need to be offended (aka politically correctness) is purely narcissistic.
Torchmark 5 months ago
@misterdeity
Women continue to use their sexuality to get what they want, and when they do, the only complaints come from the other women who were also trying but failed.
Ignore her Mr. D.
Keep up the phun!
EvanJCastle 5 months ago
@moonmonkeymama I"m no fan of sexism either, but there are times when it really isn't actually sexism (btw, I also have lady-parts and identify as female, so don't you dare write me off as just another sexist man). So there's one character who wants some female attention... that doesn't really mean anything one way or the other. The Eve episode vexed me a little bit, but when i thought about it, there are women like that and I really really do hate them, so I was cool with it. Please chill out.
KatrinaHuber 6 months ago
@moonmonkeymama I don't understand how mocking a religion isn't offensive to you, but a man thinking a woman with blonde hair is attractive is offensive. No one takes you seriously. Good luck on your soap box.
quitejaded 6 months ago
@moonmonkeymama Humor and fiction are some of the few places we can allude to these amusing flaws in ourselves, if anything the joke was self deprecating and made males look like knuckle dragging cave men. Your reaction seems to be one formed from an imaginary line in the sand you have made, and once it's been crossed you've deemed it warrants an attack. It appears what you're cradling as feminism is actually thinly veiled human tribalism, attacking the "other".
evilyig 6 months ago
@moonmonkeymama You should concentrate less on the definition of "sexism" and allocate some of that brain power towards defining "closed mindedness". Sprinkle some of those brain cells on "shallow" while you're at it to add some depth.
Long story short, it's a friggen comedy. Spaghetti Monster Almighty... relax your sphincter woman! By the way, my money says Amy doesn't give two Unicorn God poo piles about the hot blonde comment. I'll be damned if she didn't know herself that she's beautiful.
iz2sicc 5 months ago in playlist Mr. Deity
@moonmonkeymama I would say the sexism was more geared toward the men in that they would cast logic aside in order to be with a hot blonde. So yes if your a man you may be a little offended. There was nothing sexist in the skit about women at all.
MySheroniak 5 months ago
@moonmonkeymama Yeah I'm with misterdeity here, you're overreacting.
johndenverlich 5 months ago
@moonmonkeymama Boo hoo! By posting your insecurities you simply detract from the power of the clip. So for the [lack of] God's sake, shaddap!
supahsekzy 5 months ago
@moonmonkeymama "The 'hot blonde' in this sketch is a prop". Yup. Objectification of a woman. And to question whether MMM's "hypersensitivity in this one area warrants anyone's attention" is sad indeed. 50 years ago being offended by racist dehumanizing of blacks might be thought 'hypersensitive.' We advance socially when someone like MMM gives us pause to question our attitudes and habits. (I am male, by the way. Not that it should matter.)
ssppeellll 5 months ago
Yeah but now black men and white men can finally join together to put women back in their place, the kitchen.
afropaladin 4 months ago
@moonmonkeymama Except she's not a mere prop (she's not even in it). The whole point is that the Shermer character doesn't realize she's Lucifer. (And part of the gag is that after all that, he'd reconsider just for a passing attraction.) Finding someone sexually appealing is hardly sexism. Hell, it's how most romances begin! If he'd said Jesus was hot, would you also be calling it sexism? Now, if he'd said "That hot blonde must need help with science since she's a chick," that'd be sexist.
glennoFB 6 months ago
@moonmonkeymama I don't wanna pry in a private talk, but as a disinterested party, I would like to say that I am with mrdeity in this one. I have a really hard time getting (I am honestly curious to understand) how can a man showing interest in a good looking woman be sexist. is it the "hot blond"? Hard to see how that would be diminishing. The fact of the matter is that Lucy is a central - and very sensible - character throughout the series, AND just happens to - also - be a hot blond.
dmf030 6 months ago
@dmf030 It's not a private talk...no worries. I'm new to the series and did not realize that "Lucy" is a central character. Anyhow, since my hypersensitivity in this area warrants no one's attention, I have nothing further to add to the conversation.
moonmonkeymama 6 months ago
@moonmonkeymama
so, when i fantasize about female anatomy, i should feel guilty for objectifying women? lol..so, when i see a nice ass, i should either a) not sexually fantasize about it, or b) immediately start looking at the whole woman, and appreciate her mind along with her ass? but, this woman is a stranger, as most of the women men look at are. so, what do u suppose men should do? should we NOT be sexually attracted to female anatomy? and if we are, we should feel guilty?
itzahazylife 5 months ago
@moonmonkeymama
How is it sexist when a man expresses attraction toward a woman with blonde hair (who is a stranger to him--so he couldn't praise anything about her behavior even if he'd wanted to), and uses the adjective "hot"? Do you consider the adjective "hot" condescending?
iqlusionblogspot 5 months ago
@moonmonkeymama If the line had been "attractive lady" or "beautiful woman," I'm not convinced you would have labeled it sexism.
whoiga 5 months ago
You guys are great! :)
damnadat 7 months ago
"Smart guy... very clever ,SKEPTOMAN..."
animaniaco 7 months ago
5 seconds later, and I already forgot that company you were plugging... Pizza?
Makes me want some pizza...
IQbrew 7 months ago
Can some skeptic watch this and tell me what on earth is going on with this video? watch?v=-WjFC3eQiNA
I haven't found anyone who can debunk it yet.
IoPizzaPlanet 8 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet Maybe it's been debunked by now, because the video has been taken down.
strakha0 7 months ago
@strakha0 No it just got reuploaded: watch?v=TufKcBa5RaI
IoPizzaPlanet 7 months ago
very smart stuff....
MegaRobin321 8 months ago
Didn't believe in the boy... lmfao!!!!!
robbcayman 8 months ago