So untrue most atheist know the bible better then the average christian, if you read the Bible critically , it's the most contradictory and science illiterate immoral book ever written I guess you have half way intelligent friends and that's way they became atheist
I find it interesting when Atheist use bible verse to support their argument, but really don't know the content or true meaning of the verse.. ugh.. that gets under my skin!!!
What biblical bafoonry are you referring to? The fact that we are not brainwashed when we read the bible? Some verses are to be taken metaphorically & others literally, well who is to decide which are metaphors & which parts are to be taken literally? Crowbar wrenched quote? Like what?
The amount of atheists who are ignorant of the meaning of certain biblical messages are matched by the amount of "christians" who haven't read the bible cover to cover
I personally don't get offended over a disagreement with a peer reviewed scientific theory, that has been put in to practice and has been shown to be accurate as well as help the develpement of biology and antibodies, I simply laugh but dont get offended even if someone claims to seriously be critiquing evolution they always bring up things that have already been explained away so to it does grow tiresome trying to explain the same things over and over again.
In response to Evolutionists getting defensive about Evolution.
I think the reasons for this is because Evolution has been attacked by the religious from the get go. Had the religious attacked any other theory, then I think the Scientific side would get just a defensive. Just have a look at some of the atheists on YouTube debating christian Geo Centrists.
Brock, my wife and I have 22+ years of religious indoctrination from birth from a flavor of christianity that holds that the bible is inerrant and literally translated. We were book, chapter, and verse christians.
I invite you to watch our series "An Honest Search for the Truth" and let's have a biblical discussion without "biblical buffoonery".
Oh, and woe are the alchemists and astrologers, chained and shackled by the academy. It's amazing that none of these groups have the real academic freedom to put forward alternate hypotheses. Why does science have to have such high standards?
@TheAtheistAntidote are you referring to "expelled". omfg you actually BOUGHT that crock of horseshit!? do yourself a favor sir, open a book, go to a museum, do some research with an unbiased viewpoint, then tell me ben stein is not full of bs
First, I really like this new humble approach as opposed to defining your arguments as an emotional appeal which you claim on your channel is all that atheists are capable of.
Second, there is about the same disagreement among scientists as to the validity of Evolution as there is to believers/non believers of Santa Claus.
There isn't a single shred of contradictory evidence that has withheld scrutiny and we're examining transitional forms all of the time.
Depends what you mean by 'evolution'. If you mean genetic mutation + natural selection = speciation, then yes, there's no real disagreement; everyone agrees that happens. If you mean 'genetic mutation + natural selection = sufficient explanation for everything we find in nature/the fossil record/etc.' then you'd be wrong, there is significant disagreement and constant modification of theories within the scientific community on the subject. So yeah.. stop lying, or get informed.
Well before you create a conditional statement based on what you think I meant lose the condescending sarcasm.
Are you implying that ID provides any of the solutions to the disagreements among scientists?
Did you seriously think that my intention was to espouse that scientists don't disagree on anything... of course not because that is absurd. In the same way that different denominations of Christianity argue over the details.
Don't insinuate that ID is considered a viable solution.
"Are you implying that ID provides any of the solutions to the disagreements among scientists?" - yes, for some issues. For others the cosmological, biological etc. record of nature is simply better accounted for biblical models than by naturalistic evolution models.
Hey brock, fancy being a man and approving my response, which I know you've seen as you've posted a comment on my page which you subsequently deleted... You bang on about courage but when push comes to shove, it's a different story ain't it?
There are theists and seculars alike that talk about the bible but don't know what their talking about.
But then there are also a lot of Christians out there that don't understand what it means to have a secular worldview. The biggest confusions here seem - to me - to revolve around issues of meaning & morality and stem from Christians understanding these to be dependent on religion.
In short, this criticism of lack of literacy in relevant subjects goes both ways.
All I'm saying is that its a human thing for people not to know what they don't know. Its also human not realize that you don't know what you don't know.
I gave an example of how Christians commonly display this above. An example of some who are critical of the Christian worldview (not limited to but included some seculars) doing this would be zeitgeist mythicist who want to reduce the gospels to copying Greek mythology. Anyone who knows the bible, knows their largely Jewish in origin.
Not sure what your problem with evolution is. Evolution has been observed, proven and is used in prediction models successfully (which reinforces its truth). Evolution is a fact. I know you can't back up creation theory (small t) with proof and it predicts nothing. Why grasp on to the lie? Is it that comfortable?
I disagree with your statement LordWhorfinX, considering in most cases the atheist has come from a religious background and has thoroughly looked for meaning within the bible and has either found none or found the meaning to be unsatisfying.
You don't believe in Allah, but presumably don't have a great deal of knowledge about the Quran. You don't believe in Horus either, but how well do you know the Book of the Dead?
What would your response be to a muslim who remarked on his astonishment at your lack of Quranic knowledge?
You do realise, don't you, that you are as atheistic about Allah/Horus as most of us "atheists" are about Yahweh?
Well, speaking for myself, I didn't get any offended with your wrong sayings about evolution. I just said you were wrong. And when I'm wrong, that's the response I expect from other people.
I haven't read the bible in its entirety, but I sure as hell have read more than any of my christian friends. They seem completely oblivious when I question them on their belief in its text. I have both atheist and christian friends, and in my experience, the atheists seem to be more well-versed in scripture.
Th atheist is usually more "read" on the Bible....difference is that they have zero understanding of the teachings and meanings behind what is written....so it is of little difference weather an atheist reads it or not...
I see no God or Love in your apology.All I see is a jerk that wants to be a big shot. there is a old saying you give what you get.You know what I mean. You are a smart man.Please put it to good use.
Atheists approach evolution as a religion, or at least their view of religion. To them religion's blind, absolute, unquestionable, unchangeable, unchallengeable. This is how they view evolution, claiming it's an absolute truth which can't be denied. However, scientific knowledge is always changing, we have new evidence, new theories; but for some reason, evolution is said to be absolute, unchallengeable fact. If you do question it, you'll feel the wrath of the atheists, as Guillermo Gonzalez did
no, evolution isn't unchallengeable, the new fossil known as Ardi is forcing us to rethink human evolution. It seams hominids started off human in appearance and some evolved to a hunched over position like apes have, while other stayed standing upright, like humans and the now extinct neanderthal. the only reason we accept evolution as fact is in the 150 years since Darwin made the theory famous we haven't been able to replace it with a better scientific theory we only have more evidence for it
evolution is not said to be absolute and unchallengeable...on the contrary, evolution HAS been questioned, challenged and changed, and HAS met the rigor of the scientific method which is why it stands strong today...when you question it fallaciously, you will feel the "wrath" of PROPONENTS of evolution, which can be both atheists and theists
Yeah, it's not fair to make this claim of any and every naturalist/evolutionist. However it's certainly true of many lay-persons who believe in evolution. However it IS true that virtually all of them will turn to naturalistic explanations with a priori allegiance before considering a (testable, scientific) supernatrual explanation or prediction as superior. Naturalism-of-the-gaps so to speak.
How many testable scientific supernatural explanations are there, and when have they been suggested and accepted by credible peer-reviewed scientific journals?
"How many testable scientific supernatural explanations are there" - The Bible contains hundreds. It claims the universe (and time) is finite, we can test if it they are. It claims the universe is expanding, we can test if it is. etc. These two examples don't necessarily contradict naturalistic explanations, but
you can compare predictions of naturalistic models to the Biblical one and see which gets it correct more often. And even with naturalism's inherent advantage (i.e. it can constantly correct, change, update itself), the Biblical model still more consistently explains everything that we find in cosmology, physics, biology et. al.
That was my point. When I asked him to list scientific supernatural explanations that have been proposed and accepted by the scientific community (like he claims exists) and have been talked about in credible peer reviewed journals, he talked about the bible. Who the hell peer reviewed that?
"science only deals with the natural world" - agreed. But one can derive conclusions from the natural world (+ reason/logic/argument) about metaphysics and such. Thus a supernatural explanation of the scientific findings of the natural world is entirely possible. For example, if inside every rock that we crack open it said 'made by Yaweh' in the stone, would this not be natural evidence for a supernatural creator? If you admit that it would be, cont.
Basically, atheists here are claiming they read the Bible, Christians don't; they understand the Bible, Christians don't. Their support is simply assumptions and anecdotes. Secondly, atheists keep saying Christians are mindless drones following blind faith. What evidence to they have? Christianity's not only a rational faith, but early scientists were all Christians who believed we are to engage in the world, test everything and that such activity was a form of worshiping God.
Your entire statement is a giant assumption and anecdote. Christianity is NOT a rational faith whatsoever. It flies in the face of all evidence and reason.
Early scientists also believed in alchemy and astrology, so your argument about that is completely irrelevant.
i agree, atheists do treat evolution in the same manner that they think we treat our faith. it is defended with tooth and nail, right to the bitter end.
and i love your: "atheists here are claiming they read the Bible, Christians don't; they understand the Bible..."
nice!
i also agree with brock when he says evolution is not only defended with tooth and nail like i said, there's so much emotion in their arguments aswell. alot of arrogant sarcasm, and insults.
Really? I struggle to think of any videos in defence of evolution I have seen that use this style. Link us to some of them, as Brock seems to have neglected to back up that claim with evidence too.
Well, you have to understand that when an irrational belief insults human intelligence, insulting a follower of this irrational belief, comes naturally. I wonder what do you mean by being emotional about scientific facts? Or about reacting emotionally to ignorance? The real question is, can and should a sane person have a rational argument with a schizophrenic who talks to an invisible being? Pointing out the ignorance may be useful, but having a discussion seems futile.
So Christians dont read the bible but they understand it?
Well actually we agree at this point.
Christians indeed dont read the bible, but they are definitely brainwashed enough to understand what their brainwashers are expecting of them.
And they are masters of reading between the lines, which in your case means, that you can decide which word or sentence is metaphoric and which one is not.
Which command you should ignore and which to uphold. You call it reading within context.
I read the bible, and even if reading in context it still contains genocides done by God, commanded by God. Damn, even an infanticide that God gave the order to. If God is real or not, that is another topic. But God sure is no good guy.
Id tell you your ignorant if we went out for a beer and you said evolution is wrong then picked at abiogenesis and moved on to the big bang.
The reason people gget annoyed when discussing evolution is because it is like saying yea...gravity is wrong i mean i know there is a force pushing us down but the origin of the force is unknown therefore gravity is wrong.
Yet people who do not accept evolution are actually taken seriously and try to lecure kids about this shit.
Evolution and Atheism are not synonymous. Evolution is fact. Generalizing all atheist as ignorant of the bible is, well, ignorant. For instance I am very informed as far as what the bible says, I just don't believe most of it. It's disappointing that you would totally ignore James' points and then attempt to make him look bad. I guess I'll just chalk it up to the fact that we all can't have an answer for everything. Poor attempt in a otherwise good conversation, in my opinion.
I think that what you interpret as an overly-defensive tone on the part of evolutionary theory defenders is part exasperation that they have to reply to this or that objection YET AGAIN, when it's already been laid to rest by scientific community decades before. And, to the contrary, I find that atheists tend to be, as a group, far more biblically literate than most religious people are.
Well, I was an fervent evangelical myself, and it was neither the university nor evolution that persuaded me to leave the faith—
I don't understand why you feel you must bring God into a discussion about music and musical aesthetics in the first place. I would like to hear more on how these elements join together for you, and I think it may benefit the discussion.
One of the weaknesses of the Bible is its ability to be interpreted many different ways.
Now of course many, even most, on both sides believe their interpretation is correct and what god\the writer intended, however because of that, I doubt there is a single CHRISTIAN on Youtube that hasn't been told they don't understand the bible from equally devout Christians. If you disagree with many Christians, why does it surprise you that you'd disagree with atheists?
The "wagons circle" around evolution because it is one of the most solidly evidenced theories of science under attack from the a significant, politically powerful section of the populace.
I don't pretend to have read the bible, but I have yet to see the weaknesses I am aware of properly addressed. Even putting that aside I have never been given any viable reason to believe it.
now you can't be serious about the biblical bafonary! lol, that was funny, and you have to admit that a lot of atheist do know their shit, i still read the bible.
this was cool bro, i hope you two continue the discussion.
In short , some major problems with Darwin's theory:
1. the first single cell organism (life from no life)
2. dating methods (assumptions and inconsistencies)
3. DNA problem. Where does the genetic code come from within one species that would create a new species? Reproduction is self-contained, that is the DNA comes from and only from the parent(s)
4. fossil columns, where Darwin got his original idea, exist in different orders all over the world.
Nice try funky, but religion is defined as belief in a god and the TOE is not a god or involve a god in any way. Also, someone can be an atheist and have never even considered evolution, let alone believe in it.
1)Darwin's theory of Evolution says nothing about the beginning of life. Nothing whatsoever. That's abiogenesis which is completely removed from evolution.
2)Dating methods are corroborated by independent methods.
3)DNA is the solution not the problem to evolution. Claims otherwise show nothing more than ignorance about natural selection and sexual reproduction.
2. what "independent" methods. Multiple radioactive dating methods routinely contradict one another. Multiple assumptions are about about radioactive decay. For example assuming the rate of the decay is constant.
3. Nice insult, but natural selection would still only result in traits from each parent. For example if two fish have only gills (and are only genetically coded for gills), how would lungs develop, genetically speaking?
1) Thank you for making my point. That is, "The Origin of Species" does not equal "The Origin of Life" You are claiming (falsely) the latter.
2)Independent as in Carbon-14 and potassium-argon. Using different elements with different rates of decay we can more assuredly date things.
3)Ignorance isn't an insult. But more to your point, many species has genes for things that aren't manifest in the creature. Thus a life form can have the genes for gills without having gills.
1) That wasn't your claim. You're claim was that Darwin's theory of evolution was about the origin of life it isn't!!! Look up abiogenesis if you want to know about the origin of life.
2) The methods do not frequently contradict themselves (less than 1 percent) and when there are aberrations the dates are not given. That's how we hold people accountable.
3)I'm ignorant about a lot of things this isn't one. Mates seek out genes for a number of reasons. It's not a one liner to answer sorry.
Yeah, gootube comment section is not the best place for debate.
I leave it at this: Darwin stated that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." This complex organ would be an "irreducibly complex system"...
Well we can agree on that much. Now go to your copy of the Origin of Species and finish the paragraph that you started quoting. Finish the chapter at that. Darwin points out not only the faulty logic but how no example exists (as of then). And since his time numerous examples have been put forward all of which have been reduced by good science.
Quite contradictory to what you say, dating methods often support each other, otherwise the dating is not considered to be valid. Various dating methods include Radiometric dating including the K-Ar, Rb-Sr, U or Th-Pb and Carbon-14 Methods plus other methods such as Obsidian dating, Dendrochronology, Termo-remanent maganism, Termolumionescence,
Fluorine testing, Pollen Analysis and Varve Counting. These are some of our "independent" methods.
The dating methods you mention DO often contradict each other. If you look into it, you'll find that the test for "validity" is often whether or not they support an evolution time frame. This seems a bit circular, doesn't it?
Are you a scientist? I like how you used "our." The point is there are significant problems with all dating methods.
through random mutation. lungs would take a large amount of time and would have to go through previous forms that were selected for and later developed into lungs. we see the in fish that it is the swim bladder structure that eventually became lungs through selective forces on random mutations. swim bladders can still be found in some fish today (goldfish are a good example) and lung fishes (alive today) use thier own lungs to control boyancy.
I love this; watching a focused group of human beings utilizing the internet, through their language and dexterity, to debate against those who dont believe they came from a spec created from absolutely nothing.
"random mutations" would then have to occur on a exponential scale to support a complete change in species. Just one mutation in one animal would not generate the change, no matter what time frame you put on it.
Yes, the old swim bladder argument is quite popular.
Where are all of these transitional fossils? We have fossils of less "evolved" species and more evolved species, but the transitional fossils, which should be the most prevalent, are noticeably scarce.
i don't think anyone claims that one species gives birth to an entire different species, if that is your belief on the theory of evolution than i strongly recomend you go educate yourself on the subject. as for "transitional fossiles" we gave up the search back in the early 1920's when we realized that every creature is a transitional form between its parents and its offspring. the only way to have all transitional forms would be for all living creatures to become fossiles.
There isn't really academic arguments for God. Not because there aren't academic arguments for it, but because most Christians reject evidence based reasoning and science, and are only interested in a twisted pseudo science which they think supports there arguments (seriously, try to find papers on "evolutionary" genetics or any respectable field of biology which try to support creation).
And this is what the core problem with faith is, why its dying out (too unyielding) and why I left.
The reason we give emotional reactions to your comments is because they're deceptive strawman arguments about evolution. And there really isn't any good reason for you to ask a good and fair question, because of the sheer wealth of information readily available could answer almost any question you raise.
But if you ask a fair and reasonable question about evolution (ie to simply expand your knowledge of the theory) I will give you a fair and polite answer to the best of my abilities.
3:15 Projecting much? Theists have a book they're given at (or before) joining that tells them what to say when questioned about their faith (the intellectual equivalent of "up yours", assuming they don't, you know, kill them as blasphemers and whatnot).
3:28 Sure, plenty of atheists don't understand religion, but why should we understand Christianity specifically (in fairness we should study all of them and we don't have that time), however ex-Christians know the bible all too well.
... probably better than many so-called Christians (who don't read the bible, they just learn about it as others teach them).
There's no reason that reading the entire bible is necessary to have a view on Christianity. Its intellectually honest, but not a prerequisite. That would be like saying if you haven't read Origin of species then you can't comment on evolution.
Simply because you may know more atheists than Christians who've read the Bible doesn't mean most Christians don't read/study it. Further, most atheists I've listened to, & that includes intellectuals like Dawkins, don't know how to read the Bible. For example, most atheists I've listened to condemn the Bible for condoning slavery; however, what's meant by "slavery" in the Bible is contentious as it often refers to what's known today as indentured servants.
Brock, for the most part, this was one of your better videos but I wish to point out certain aspects you may wish to consider. First, you talk about atheists as "Falling from the Faith" whereas most atheists I know would think of themselves as having "climbed out of the Faith" by grabbing onto the overhanging branches of reality. Secondly, you say that atheists lack any belief or understanding of the "supernatural or transcendent" whereas some do and some don't. Buddhists, for example, (cont.)
(cont.) are both atheists and also have a very high regard for the transcendent. Other atheists have no regard whatsoever for anything along those lines. Still others are open to the idea but haven't experienced anything that would lead them to give it much credence. You really can't bunch atheists together, like you often do, when the only thing they agree on is that there is insufficient evidence to convince them that any of the multitude proffered gods exist. And lastly, you state (cont.)
(cont.) that the atheists you encounter have never studied "God's word", referring to your Bible, or, if they have, they read it out of context. Now really, Brock, there have been many atheists responding to you who have demonstrated a very good understanding of the bible, many who were actually Christians for many years before coming to the conclusion that the book was written by men who were not inspired by the creator of the universe, men who were lying about such inspiration. That's it.
Supernatural gods aside, if you believe that evolution is a lie or 'just a theory' (equivocation and a lie) you expose your ignorance of the facts. Not to be insulting. Each of us is ignorant of much. Biology has shown a million times over that evolution happens now. It is incontrovertible. Study that with as much attention as you do xtian scripture & you will realise that. If you said the Earth was flat, you would get the same response. (I assume you accept heliocentrism)
Brock... I have read the bible. Most atheists I know have read the bible, and most Christians that I know have NEVER read the bible. The Christians ignorance of the bible is astounding to no end.
Once I was telling a story to a half a dozen christian acquaintances, I refereed to a person as having the proportions of a "Behemoth"... to which they all looked at me, and perplexed they asked me what a Behemoth was!
Brock, I do admire the fact that you wanted to apologize.
But please realize that after 2:30, it stops being an apology, and starts being another attack. I am sure you meant the best by your apology, but this makes it seem incredibly insincere.
In Brock's defense, in every one of James' videos there were moments of "attack". If you watch the first video in this series, Brock made an honest attempt to have a passionate discussion about their personal opinions on the subject of music. James decided that his reply would be a 40 minute lecture, spending none of the time talking about the passion involved in music. So, I would think that we could forgive a few minutes of Brock returning a little of the dischord.
I'm an artist (love your AA character :)) and a musical dabbler. All arts deal with same dynamics - harmony, dischord, rhythms, etc. In my experience as a visual artist who deals extensively in figure-work, I see those who draw figs entirely by the science of it - mastery of the rules (anat, proportions, foreshortening, composition, etc.). The drawings may look "perfect", but something lacks. There is a stiffness -- a "lifelessness" (cont.)
(Part II) where as if one masters the rules, yet executes from more a place of "spirit" or "gut instinct" relying on muscle memory, something else happens. those guys' figures come to life with a quality that really cannot be completely defined.
& even if it could be defined -- that explanation would not be what created the work, rather only a description of the path taken in that journey of "spirit" or "gut".
I think this applies to James' ideas about the chem processes observed. (cont.)
(Part III) and it's also analogous of a life/walk in the Spirit of God. The rules (law) are what need to be accomplished (righteousness), but we are unable to keep them - there's no life in it. When born of the Spirit, however, The law of the Spirit encompasses (fulfills) the law (think of law as a circle that lies completely in the larger circle of the Spirit). As we live in the Spirit, the law automatically gets done - and there IS life in it.
Brock.. you are retarded... just thought I'd bring this fact to your attention.
In this one video I've seen blatant psychological projection, misrepresentation of scientific theories, blatant lies about the scientific FACT of evolution and the MOUNTAIN of evidence that backs it up.
Do I even have to point out the irony of you being able to make a video and upload it on the internet, but can't do any research on scientific theories and the facts they are based on?
::raises hand:: I spent fifteen years studying the Bible, Brock; many other atheists are the same way. You can talk about context - GEERUP did as well - but there is a large amount of explaining away you need to do if you wish to justify the passages on permanent slavery supported in the Bible. And you mention "from the Old Testament" like it should matter. Brock, if your morality is TRULY absolute and objective, then why are the moral laws handed down in the
Old Testament not followed today? Or even the parts of the New Testament that take no issue with slavery?
The point is the amount of things you have to not accept to believe what you do is staggering - you pretty much throw the vast majority of science away. The things I have to not accept to believe what I do is staggeringly small. When amputees start spontaneously regrowing limbs or people rise from the dead after a few days or weeks, or when the sun revolves around the earth, or when
rabbits chew cud, or when two of every animal can fit on a giant wooden boat that would break apart under its own weight in the ocean, then I think you'd have room to complain about people being ignorant about what it says in the Bible.
Until then, though, all the evidence is stacked against you, so for many atheists being ignorant of the Bible is akin to being ignorant of what was written in the Great Gatsby or Thinner by Stephen King: it matters very little in the grand scheme of things.
"if your morality is TRULY absolute and objective, then why are the moral laws handed down in the Old Testament not followed today?"
2 covenants; Old, the law - the new instituted by Messiah's death and lived by His resurrected Spirit. The law was death - the Spirit brings life. The law a shadow (filled with shadows), that points to the substance, Messiah. All corruption (including slavery) is a man-made problem. God regulates man's corruption - in doing so, points to the ANSWER, Yeshua.
This is probably a mistake, because I can see you really already have your conclusions, but here we go...
"So two different sets of moral laws were needed. So it's not absolute. Thank you for answering my question."
Way to put words in my mouth. No, but the law was imperfect. It was not capable of bringing salvation. Think of how incomplete a picture even your shadow is of you. But it's darkness, expressing what it can of the Thing that's casting the shadow.
So your god created an imperfect law? I thought he was all powerful. Your god could just grant salvation at a whim if he wanted to. Nothing is 'required'.
I put words in your mouth because you *did not answer my question*. There are two sets of moral laws. One for different times. Therefor, the MORALITY WAS NOT ABSOLUTE.
And the new testament still gives the thumbs up to slavery.
I went through this exact exchange on Krazie316's channel: why didn't god hand down one set of laws for everyone for all time? It seems like a paltry task for the perfect being.
It was perfect for it's purpose, but never intended to give life. It's purpose was to show the incapability of being righteous by keeping the law - or as Paul wrote, to be "a schoolmaster to chase us to Messiah"
The "new law" fulfills the requirements of the old - a larger circle encompassing a smaller.
"And the new testament still gives the thumbs up to slavery."
a false statement. That it doesn't end it is not a thumbs up.
so you are saying that god messed up and that he had to create better laws? because if i recall from what christians proclaim the same god wrote both Testaments. Which would mean god cant be all powerful
"Oh, and slavery was acceptable in the New Testament as well. Do you support it?"
There are MANY wrong things the NT did not address directly, but it certainly deals with them. LIBERTY. Christ came to set "captives free", but as Paul demonstrated (as well as others), he could be in chains in the flesh and still have complete liberty in the Spirit. Spiritual freedom & eternal life is the top priority but freedom from all captivity is Jesus' message.
Yes, the bible is self contradictory. I think it's pretty clear. And yes, it does. Paul and Jesus bring up slavery. What do they say? Be obedient to your masters. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of freedom, there.
And bitterness? No, sorry, I am not bitter towards nonexistent things, but I spit on your blessings and your snake oil remedies and "redemption".
"And bitterness? No, sorry, I am not bitter towards nonexistent things, but I spit on your blessings and your snake oil remedies and "redemption"."
And I thought you were being bitter. ;)
Yes, Paul and Jesus brought up slavery. And Jesus brought up slapping cheeks and suing for tunics. The parallel is right there, but you can ignore it if you like.
No, I spit on it because false offers of redemption and hidden chains of mental slavery are vile and evil things. I am not a weak willed lamb to be manipulated and controlled by your cult.
So, sure, Paul and Jesus support tyranny. Cool. Paul also tells women to shut up in church and that homosexuality is somehow a sin. ::golf claps:: Such moral leadership your xtian leaders possessed.
I can pull out chapters to support what I'm talking about, if you will - but since there are 36,000 different denominations of you Christians with wildly different views on the Bible, who exactly is the final authority I have to convince here?
To be fair some of what he says is Biblically ignorant, and some of it is simply based on shallow, popular, English readings of scripture. Many of these misinterpretations are the popular interpretations, and shared by most Christians in some instances.
But yeah, this doesn't make him any less wrong. The Bible and science are at odds not at all.
And to be even more fair, there's yet a third source of error for his faulty claim that 'science contradicts the Bible' (in addition to ignorance, and misreading of scripture). It's the misunderstanding of where the authority of science begins and ends; i.e. science can tell us that a human zygote can be formed without human sperm and an egg, it is silent on the issue of whether or not Jesus' conception was a fiat miracle of supernaturaly origin.
Matt 5:40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also."
Maybe Jesus wants us all to sue for each other's tunics, too?
Or perhaps there's just a bit more depth to these words of the Jewish Carpenter that have changed the world - the One who still gets people that don't even believe in Him to spend so much energy talking about Him.
I talk about it because Christians don't shut the fuck up about it, to be blunt. If you xtians kept it to yourself and never talked about it and did not try to run the country based on the bible, or destroy scientific progress, I'd have no complaints.
Unfortunately, seems like the world doesn't work that way. Why are you quoting bible verses that have nothing to do with what I am talking about?
That's wonderful. I could care less what your series says. It says directly in the bible that non-Israelites could be taken as slaves and kept as property permanently.
"I could less..." SO why should anyone care what you think or say? You are wrong. The bible Doesn't Say that non-Israelites could be *taken* , this is deception, and you are either ignorant or lying. And I know you think it *doesn't matter* that the notion of property in ANE Israel is different than yours, but it does matter, you can *care less* all you want but your still wrong.
I never said they should. They should care about what the bible says. It specifically says slaves of non-Hebrew nature are PROPERTY to be passed down in perpetuity. Even if this was 'temporary debt slavery' it would still be wrong.
I am not lying. I can quote the bible verses which you apparently wish to lie about. Isn't lying a sin in your religion? I thought your morals were supposed to be absolute and objective? So slavery is cool in Israel but is bad now? Heh. Hypocrite.
Again, the notion of PROPERTY for you is actually different than that of ANE Israel, but I suspect that little fact is a little too much to grasp for a bewildered ape. Let's stick to thr real issue, you said Israel was allowed to *take* non Hebrews as slaves, please life up to your claim and "quote the Bible verses" at this point I haven't *lied* about anything but you can TRY to prove that if you wish, I suspect if we were to catch you in a lie, NO BIG DEAL, right?
As far as morals and the Bible is concerned, I have a series on that topic too, don't have space to explain it all to a Neanderthal such as yourself in this little comment box. YES, let's just stick to one topic at a time, so please quote me your verse that says an Israelite can *take* a non-Hebrew slave?
Aww, and you're going to start with the insults! How cute, the stupid little xtian gets mad I disagree with his evil little fairytale book.
Yes, property is different for me than an Israelite, because I don't believe people can be property. They (and you, it seems), did. But as for bible verses?
You started by calling me a hypocrite, don't whine like a baby if you are going it give it and can't take it. Lev 25:44-46 says buy (by the way Israelites were prohibited to engage in slave trade EX 21:16, this is self-sell) NOT *take*, FAIL; Judges 21 slavery not here, FAIL; Num 31, slavery not here, FAIL; Deut 20, hypothetical, never happened, FAIL; Deut 21, no slavery here, FAIL; Judges 5, no slavery here, FAIL. Actually they owned 'ebed' which can be translated servant or slave.
Actually, no, you started by calling me ignorant or a liar, so mayhap you should shove the self righteousness up your ass.
So the slaveholders in the south of the US were fine because they just 'bought' slaves and did not 'take' them. Judges 21 had the Israelites kidnap women to take home and use to procreate with - sex slavery, YOU FAIL. Numbers 31 has them keep the young virgin women CAPTIVES to breed with - sex slaves, again, you FAIL. Deut 20 doesn't matter if it's hypothetical,
Pointing out that you are either ignorant or a liar isn't *name calling* if it is actually true. US bought their slaves through slave trade (basically buying kidnap victims) which was prohibited in Israel (EX 21;16), LEV 25 deals with self sell by the way you said the passage says *take* it doesn't (thus either your a liar or ignorant) Jud21, Num 31 and like deal with assimilating women into the nation through marriage NOT sex slavery, your distorations is based on your bias and ignorance of ANE
And calling you a liar and a hypocrite isn't name calling if it is true - which, for you, it is. Quit trying to justify the fact you're nothing but a slimy little hypocrite who can't take what he tries to dish out. And no, it's not "assimilating" women, it is killing their families and then telling them they are going to be taken and used to make new little Israelites.
Listen kid, you haven't demonstrated I have lied or that I am a hypocrite (go look up the word, moron). You said that Israelites could *take* and none of the passages you used for support don't say *take* so far you are the one that is lying. As far the women, you have *no ideal* when it comes to ANE history, But I have addressed all of this COMPLETE NONSENSE in my videos, I just don't have the room on a comments board.
because your god would have allowed it, so you FAIL, Deut 21, sex slaves again,
Judges 5, using female captives as sex slaves again, you fucking fail. Seriously, do you fail at everything else as much as you fail at your own fairy tale?
So no, you fail at everything, once again. These PEOPLE were passed down. It was permanent. Your attempt to justify this because they PURCHASED the slave instead of kidnapped them from their home (a point in which you are wrong, by the way, read your)
own fucking book) is as horrible and vile as Southerns justifying black slavery by saying they were caring for a race too enfeebled and unintelligent to survive on their own.
Sorry, you're nothing but a vile, twisted little manchild who supports slavery. Oh, and you're a liar and a hypocrite. Have a nice life, I have better things to do then talk to someone with the moral character of Goebbels or Torquemada.
Now, here is were you impose your personal biased opinions on the text. You said the passage says *take* but it doesn't. I am not wrong at all and your ability to use foul language doesn't mean your right, it means you don't have an advanced vocabulary. The arguments I use are the exact same arguments Christian abolutionists used pre-civil war but you are probably ignorant of that too. By the way, you are no position to judge me, boy. I am not worried about some coward hidding behind a PC
And you're NOT imposing your personal biased opinions on the text? Or on science textbooks, and history textbooks, and everything else YOU reject? And when did I say swearing makes me right? Another stupid assumption on your part. And advanced vocabulary? What does 'foul language' have to do with that? I use it because I like to. I know about Christian abolitionists (by the way, if you want to criticize someone's vocabulary, perhaps you should spell worlds correctly), but I also know about
No, actually, I'm not. By the way what, books to you *assume* I reject? Apparently, you mind is filled with unsubstantiated assumptions, when make claims based on unsubstantiated assumptions it lowers your credibility. Swearing seems to be the basis for your arguments because you haven't offered any real premises. "I use it because I like to." Yes, sure you did.
the many Christians - such as you - who supported slavery. Oh, and yes, I am in a position to judge you, as you quite clearly judged me from the very beginning. And coward? Please, I've been an open atheist even when growing up in a fundamentalist environment. You're welcome to come find me and I'll say these exact same things to your smug little xtian face :)
Don't flatter yourself, kid. Some uneducated religious zealot from Texas doesn't frighten me.
More false accussations? Stop being an idiot, you made a statement, I demonstrated it was false and now you are just filibustering with nonsense. Oh, I know it is SOOO hard to be an atheist in the USA, please, you are a coward because you acting like a *badass* behind a computer screen and I am confident you wouldn't say half this crap to my face, as far as education I have already forgotten more things than you know, and you are still wrong. LOL, YOU ARE CALLING ME A ZEALOT, now that is funny
You demonstrated no such thing. And yes, it is hard. Have you ever had someone try to beat the shit out of you for your belief (or in my case, lack there of)? I highly doubt it, in this country. How, exactly, am I acting like a badass? You've been just as confrontational - actually, more so, seeing as how you started it - than I have.
I also find it amusing that all the shit you tried to accuse me of - lying, accusing you of things when i don't "know you", etc - are all things YOU have
Deut 21 and Judges 5 deal with assimilating and marriage, and by the way if the marriages didn't work out the women were to be set free, Deut 21:14, not actually sold into the slave trade, like other ANE nations and their laws allowed, you clearly have never read an actual book on this topic but maybe you haven't advanced enough in your personal evolutionary process to do any real reading on the topic, instead you repeat the skeptic nonsense your skeptic buddies echo here on Youtube
Actually, no, I spent fifteen years studying this bullshit. :)
Ohhh, and 'set free'! That means they *were* slaves. They had no fucking choice in the matter. Quit trying to justify this
I have read actual books on this. The main one is called the Bible. Maybe you haven't advanced enough in your cult indoctrination process to lie better for your religion, instead you just repeat the fundie nonsense your fundie buddies echo here on youtube.
15 years? your profile says your 24, I highly doubt that your Biblical studies during years of puberty qualifies you to be an expert of the subject, Don't twist my words, the women were either to be married into the nation or set free, they never were slaves, you really don't know what your talking about. I am sure you have read some of the Bible, you probably read it like a newspaper, like it was written yesterday and for you personally, which is what I expect to see from a hothead teen
'ebed' was used for all subordinate relationships, All major characters are called 'ebed' at some point, in fact, unlike all other ANE nations, Israel didn't have a word for slave but I suspect you won't be able toconnect the dots on this, Your ideal of slave 'forced labor' is NOT what is being regulated in the OT, The 'property' that the Israelities could buy *not take* was the labor NOT the person and your still wrong.
And Biblical morality is some of the most disgusting and vile "moral" codes ever written or designed. I wouldn't expect a Nazi sympathizer such as yourself to understand it. Go fuck yourself. Conversation over. You fail at the bible, just like you fail in whatever it is you do in real life.
Oh, and for someone whose channel says "no ad hominems or name calling" you sure are fond of it. You're a hypocrite. Go die in a fire.
"Go die in a fire"? oh you seem SO moral, "You fail at the bible, just like you fail in whatever it is you do in real life.
" WOW, you don't even know me, but hey dude, you probably claim you base all your opinions and beliefs on *facts* please, stop with the nonsense already.
As I am the only one in this conversation who has not tried to justify slavery, yes, I am more moral than you are.
I don't know you, but you felt free to immediately call me ignorant, a liar, a Neanderthal, and so forth. If you can't handle the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. Sorry! Bible backs me, not you. Now go back to lying for Jeebus or whatever it is you do.
I haven't *justified* slavery (if you are defining it as forced labor) my argument that what is regulated in the OT isn't forced labor, so not only are you a liar about things in the Bible, you are falsely accussing me. You are more moral than me ? LOL, just out of curiosity, can you even make a *moral* argument against slavery or anything else? Your personalized opinions impressed into the text is what is *backing* you NOT the actual text, stop being a fool.
Yes, you did justify slavery. What occurred in the bible is forced labor and forced sexual intercourse. It's slavery, chump. I've provided verses. You've provided nothing.
To answer your questions: Yes and yes.
Stop being a hypocrite. Everything you have accused me of doing you have done in spades - and unlike you I don't make it a point on my channel to diss ad hominems or insults :)
Anyways, I have better things to do than deal with closet CSA supporters like you. Have a nice life.
I didn't justify slavery (forced labor). The verses you provided don't support what you claim, you are a liar and a fool. You are not in position to determine who is more moral, and you sound like a fool making such statements especially about people you really don't know. If you can actually make a moral argument against slavery, then do it otherwise you are probably lying about that too. Stop being a fool. I have a great life, so I will, maybe you should get one.
Christians don't shut the fuck up because we live in a country that honors freedom of speech but if you really want people to shut the fuck up remember it is best to lead by example.
So untrue most atheist know the bible better then the average christian, if you read the Bible critically , it's the most contradictory and science illiterate immoral book ever written I guess you have half way intelligent friends and that's way they became atheist
mrgetrealpeople 1 year ago
I find it interesting when Atheist use bible verse to support their argument, but really don't know the content or true meaning of the verse.. ugh.. that gets under my skin!!!
pwezzii 1 year ago
What biblical bafoonry are you referring to? The fact that we are not brainwashed when we read the bible? Some verses are to be taken metaphorically & others literally, well who is to decide which are metaphors & which parts are to be taken literally? Crowbar wrenched quote? Like what?
Celticking36 2 years ago
awesome vid brother!
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
The amount of atheists who are ignorant of the meaning of certain biblical messages are matched by the amount of "christians" who haven't read the bible cover to cover
jared1k 2 years ago
There is about the same amount of sincerity in this video as logic in a Christian man's brain.
snuffaluffagus89 2 years ago
I personally don't get offended over a disagreement with a peer reviewed scientific theory, that has been put in to practice and has been shown to be accurate as well as help the develpement of biology and antibodies, I simply laugh but dont get offended even if someone claims to seriously be critiquing evolution they always bring up things that have already been explained away so to it does grow tiresome trying to explain the same things over and over again.
BEOWULF9965 2 years ago
You shoodnt give him no mersy. He commy and quoir.
ClickPanic 2 years ago
On "circling the wagons" -I think many atheists simply get tired of encountering the same misconceptions and ridiculous arguments about evolution.
Funkymonkey1930's comments above are a good example. After a while there's not much to do but throw your arms up in exasperation.
As for why evolution specifically, it's because it's the only theory constantly under attack to any substantial degree.
Ssalamanderr 2 years ago
In response to Evolutionists getting defensive about Evolution.
I think the reasons for this is because Evolution has been attacked by the religious from the get go. Had the religious attacked any other theory, then I think the Scientific side would get just a defensive. Just have a look at some of the atheists on YouTube debating christian Geo Centrists.
conartist1991 2 years ago
Brock, my wife and I have 22+ years of religious indoctrination from birth from a flavor of christianity that holds that the bible is inerrant and literally translated. We were book, chapter, and verse christians.
I invite you to watch our series "An Honest Search for the Truth" and let's have a biblical discussion without "biblical buffoonery".
holysinecure 2 years ago
Yeah, that old "evolutionary club" full of virtually all biologists.
FonduFyre 2 years ago
Do they really have a choice is the question? Ben Stein showed the world they don't!
TheAtheistAntidote 2 years ago
Oh, and woe are the alchemists and astrologers, chained and shackled by the academy. It's amazing that none of these groups have the real academic freedom to put forward alternate hypotheses. Why does science have to have such high standards?
FonduFyre 2 years ago
@TheAtheistAntidote are you referring to "expelled". omfg you actually BOUGHT that crock of horseshit!? do yourself a favor sir, open a book, go to a museum, do some research with an unbiased viewpoint, then tell me ben stein is not full of bs
generosos87 1 year ago
3:20 IS SPOT ON.
Bill W
LCMS Seminarian
WKWILLEN 2 years ago
Respect++.
5 *.
You don't admit being wrong often, and it shows lots of class to do so.
NeezmoK 2 years ago
First, I really like this new humble approach as opposed to defining your arguments as an emotional appeal which you claim on your channel is all that atheists are capable of.
Second, there is about the same disagreement among scientists as to the validity of Evolution as there is to believers/non believers of Santa Claus.
There isn't a single shred of contradictory evidence that has withheld scrutiny and we're examining transitional forms all of the time.
>>>Ardi the Ardipithecus ramidus
JrobHartley 2 years ago
Depends what you mean by 'evolution'. If you mean genetic mutation + natural selection = speciation, then yes, there's no real disagreement; everyone agrees that happens. If you mean 'genetic mutation + natural selection = sufficient explanation for everything we find in nature/the fossil record/etc.' then you'd be wrong, there is significant disagreement and constant modification of theories within the scientific community on the subject. So yeah.. stop lying, or get informed.
TheIllegit 2 years ago
Well before you create a conditional statement based on what you think I meant lose the condescending sarcasm.
Are you implying that ID provides any of the solutions to the disagreements among scientists?
Did you seriously think that my intention was to espouse that scientists don't disagree on anything... of course not because that is absurd. In the same way that different denominations of Christianity argue over the details.
Don't insinuate that ID is considered a viable solution.
JrobHartley 2 years ago
"Are you implying that ID provides any of the solutions to the disagreements among scientists?" - yes, for some issues. For others the cosmological, biological etc. record of nature is simply better accounted for biblical models than by naturalistic evolution models.
TheIllegit 2 years ago
So your assertion is that the Bible (biblical models) is a useful tool for the mainstream scientific community?
No ID tenants have ever held up to scrutiny. I suggest you get educated. Watch Ken Miller's lectures and review the evidence from the Dover Case.
ID was legally proven to, at least, be bad science and intentionally intellectually dishonest at worst.
If you're aware of any ID tenants that have been upheld by the scientific community please enlighten me.
JrobHartley 2 years ago
I quite like seeing you apologise Brock. Makes me feel all warm inside.. ;)
bewarethelizards42 2 years ago
Happy to please BTL
TheAtheistAntidote 2 years ago
Hey brock, fancy being a man and approving my response, which I know you've seen as you've posted a comment on my page which you subsequently deleted... You bang on about courage but when push comes to shove, it's a different story ain't it?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
sorry about that buddy I did not set the settings properly.
My bad.
TheAtheistAntidote 2 years ago
There are theists and seculars alike that talk about the bible but don't know what their talking about.
But then there are also a lot of Christians out there that don't understand what it means to have a secular worldview. The biggest confusions here seem - to me - to revolve around issues of meaning & morality and stem from Christians understanding these to be dependent on religion.
In short, this criticism of lack of literacy in relevant subjects goes both ways.
myintellectualjourny 2 years ago
"theists and seculars" are not two sides of the same coin.
blackchimp99 2 years ago
All I'm saying is that its a human thing for people not to know what they don't know. Its also human not realize that you don't know what you don't know.
I gave an example of how Christians commonly display this above. An example of some who are critical of the Christian worldview (not limited to but included some seculars) doing this would be zeitgeist mythicist who want to reduce the gospels to copying Greek mythology. Anyone who knows the bible, knows their largely Jewish in origin.
myintellectualjourny 2 years ago
Not sure what your problem with evolution is. Evolution has been observed, proven and is used in prediction models successfully (which reinforces its truth). Evolution is a fact. I know you can't back up creation theory (small t) with proof and it predicts nothing. Why grasp on to the lie? Is it that comfortable?
amadain17 2 years ago
I disagree with your statement LordWhorfinX, considering in most cases the atheist has come from a religious background and has thoroughly looked for meaning within the bible and has either found none or found the meaning to be unsatisfying.
Cwill19 2 years ago
You don't believe in Allah, but presumably don't have a great deal of knowledge about the Quran. You don't believe in Horus either, but how well do you know the Book of the Dead?
What would your response be to a muslim who remarked on his astonishment at your lack of Quranic knowledge?
You do realise, don't you, that you are as atheistic about Allah/Horus as most of us "atheists" are about Yahweh?
NonStampCollector 2 years ago
no take it to the bank?
GoldenWeeks1981 2 years ago
Well, speaking for myself, I didn't get any offended with your wrong sayings about evolution. I just said you were wrong. And when I'm wrong, that's the response I expect from other people.
andretaff 2 years ago
I haven't read the bible in its entirety, but I sure as hell have read more than any of my christian friends. They seem completely oblivious when I question them on their belief in its text. I have both atheist and christian friends, and in my experience, the atheists seem to be more well-versed in scripture.
Cwill19 2 years ago
Th atheist is usually more "read" on the Bible....difference is that they have zero understanding of the teachings and meanings behind what is written....so it is of little difference weather an atheist reads it or not...
LordWhorfinX 2 years ago
your not quite well preserved are you
FenriX123 2 years ago
I see no God or Love in your apology.All I see is a jerk that wants to be a big shot. there is a old saying you give what you get.You know what I mean. You are a smart man.Please put it to good use.
Peace and Love
thebluray 2 years ago
Atheists approach evolution as a religion, or at least their view of religion. To them religion's blind, absolute, unquestionable, unchangeable, unchallengeable. This is how they view evolution, claiming it's an absolute truth which can't be denied. However, scientific knowledge is always changing, we have new evidence, new theories; but for some reason, evolution is said to be absolute, unchallengeable fact. If you do question it, you'll feel the wrath of the atheists, as Guillermo Gonzalez did
ChristianMission 2 years ago
no, evolution isn't unchallengeable, the new fossil known as Ardi is forcing us to rethink human evolution. It seams hominids started off human in appearance and some evolved to a hunched over position like apes have, while other stayed standing upright, like humans and the now extinct neanderthal. the only reason we accept evolution as fact is in the 150 years since Darwin made the theory famous we haven't been able to replace it with a better scientific theory we only have more evidence for it
thisis3d 2 years ago
evolution is not said to be absolute and unchallengeable...on the contrary, evolution HAS been questioned, challenged and changed, and HAS met the rigor of the scientific method which is why it stands strong today...when you question it fallaciously, you will feel the "wrath" of PROPONENTS of evolution, which can be both atheists and theists
lypse14 2 years ago
Yeah, it's not fair to make this claim of any and every naturalist/evolutionist. However it's certainly true of many lay-persons who believe in evolution. However it IS true that virtually all of them will turn to naturalistic explanations with a priori allegiance before considering a (testable, scientific) supernatrual explanation or prediction as superior. Naturalism-of-the-gaps so to speak.
TheIllegit 2 years ago
How many testable scientific supernatural explanations are there, and when have they been suggested and accepted by credible peer-reviewed scientific journals?
Rithrandil 2 years ago
"How many testable scientific supernatural explanations are there" - The Bible contains hundreds. It claims the universe (and time) is finite, we can test if it they are. It claims the universe is expanding, we can test if it is. etc. These two examples don't necessarily contradict naturalistic explanations, but
TheIllegit 2 years ago
you can compare predictions of naturalistic models to the Biblical one and see which gets it correct more often. And even with naturalism's inherent advantage (i.e. it can constantly correct, change, update itself), the Biblical model still more consistently explains everything that we find in cosmology, physics, biology et. al.
TheIllegit 2 years ago
If you say so.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
There's no such thing of "scientific supernatrual explanation". Science only deals with the natural world.
blackchimp99 2 years ago
That was my point. When I asked him to list scientific supernatural explanations that have been proposed and accepted by the scientific community (like he claims exists) and have been talked about in credible peer reviewed journals, he talked about the bible. Who the hell peer reviewed that?
Rithrandil 2 years ago
That's typical creationist logic for ya ; )
blackchimp99 2 years ago
"science only deals with the natural world" - agreed. But one can derive conclusions from the natural world (+ reason/logic/argument) about metaphysics and such. Thus a supernatural explanation of the scientific findings of the natural world is entirely possible. For example, if inside every rock that we crack open it said 'made by Yaweh' in the stone, would this not be natural evidence for a supernatural creator? If you admit that it would be, cont.
TheIllegit 2 years ago
then you also admit that it's possible for various scientific discoveries to at least have the POTENTIAL to point toward (or away from) a creator.
And there are indeed various evidences that are only slightly less remarkable and certain than the 'made by yaweh' written in stone example.
TheIllegit 2 years ago
Basically, atheists here are claiming they read the Bible, Christians don't; they understand the Bible, Christians don't. Their support is simply assumptions and anecdotes. Secondly, atheists keep saying Christians are mindless drones following blind faith. What evidence to they have? Christianity's not only a rational faith, but early scientists were all Christians who believed we are to engage in the world, test everything and that such activity was a form of worshiping God.
ChristianMission 2 years ago
You believe in a god... how rational is that?
Falloutmoon 2 years ago
Your entire statement is a giant assumption and anecdote. Christianity is NOT a rational faith whatsoever. It flies in the face of all evidence and reason.
Early scientists also believed in alchemy and astrology, so your argument about that is completely irrelevant.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
@ChristianMission
i agree, atheists do treat evolution in the same manner that they think we treat our faith. it is defended with tooth and nail, right to the bitter end.
and i love your: "atheists here are claiming they read the Bible, Christians don't; they understand the Bible..."
nice!
i also agree with brock when he says evolution is not only defended with tooth and nail like i said, there's so much emotion in their arguments aswell. alot of arrogant sarcasm, and insults.
diuryl 2 years ago
Really? I struggle to think of any videos in defence of evolution I have seen that use this style. Link us to some of them, as Brock seems to have neglected to back up that claim with evidence too.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
JmkLcAeJsm have you honestly not seen this done here?
TheAtheistAntidote 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
"Really? I struggle to think of any videos in defence of evolution I have seen that use this style."
check out the infamous thunderfoot and his arrogant belittling of people who disagree with evolution.
check out some of theamazingatheist's vids, and look through some comments on vids about evolution.
it's everywhere!
diuryl 2 years ago
Link me an 'arrogant' thunderfoot video then. Exasperated would be a better term.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
go to his channel and check out his vids. i don't even need to send a link, his channel and YT is littered with them.
diuryl 2 years ago
I've seen every single one. Like I say, exasperated and mocking but not arrogant and always, always, backed up with fact.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
WOW!!! belittling people is not arrogant?
well maybe you have a different definition of arrogant.
diuryl 2 years ago
Well, you have to understand that when an irrational belief insults human intelligence, insulting a follower of this irrational belief, comes naturally. I wonder what do you mean by being emotional about scientific facts? Or about reacting emotionally to ignorance? The real question is, can and should a sane person have a rational argument with a schizophrenic who talks to an invisible being? Pointing out the ignorance may be useful, but having a discussion seems futile.
eldadevata 2 years ago
So Christians dont read the bible but they understand it?
Well actually we agree at this point.
Christians indeed dont read the bible, but they are definitely brainwashed enough to understand what their brainwashers are expecting of them.
And they are masters of reading between the lines, which in your case means, that you can decide which word or sentence is metaphoric and which one is not.
Which command you should ignore and which to uphold. You call it reading within context.
Lovely!
eldadevata 2 years ago
Good video man
beefking69er 2 years ago
He stares at the ground a lot while apologizing. This indicates a degree of shame, meaning this is a sincere apology.
You're a good man, Brock.
follower64 2 years ago
most respectful video he's ever made
trentib69 2 years ago
I read the bible, and even if reading in context it still contains genocides done by God, commanded by God. Damn, even an infanticide that God gave the order to. If God is real or not, that is another topic. But God sure is no good guy.
Cribozai 2 years ago
Id tell you your ignorant if we went out for a beer and you said evolution is wrong then picked at abiogenesis and moved on to the big bang.
The reason people gget annoyed when discussing evolution is because it is like saying yea...gravity is wrong i mean i know there is a force pushing us down but the origin of the force is unknown therefore gravity is wrong.
Yet people who do not accept evolution are actually taken seriously and try to lecure kids about this shit.
weefraze06 2 years ago
Evolution and Atheism are not synonymous. Evolution is fact. Generalizing all atheist as ignorant of the bible is, well, ignorant. For instance I am very informed as far as what the bible says, I just don't believe most of it. It's disappointing that you would totally ignore James' points and then attempt to make him look bad. I guess I'll just chalk it up to the fact that we all can't have an answer for everything. Poor attempt in a otherwise good conversation, in my opinion.
southmcl 2 years ago
A classy reply.
I think that what you interpret as an overly-defensive tone on the part of evolutionary theory defenders is part exasperation that they have to reply to this or that objection YET AGAIN, when it's already been laid to rest by scientific community decades before. And, to the contrary, I find that atheists tend to be, as a group, far more biblically literate than most religious people are.
roentgen571 2 years ago
Well, I was an fervent evangelical myself, and it was neither the university nor evolution that persuaded me to leave the faith—
I don't understand why you feel you must bring God into a discussion about music and musical aesthetics in the first place. I would like to hear more on how these elements join together for you, and I think it may benefit the discussion.
Glad to see the apology!
apolloxias 2 years ago
"Biblical buffoonery"
One of the weaknesses of the Bible is its ability to be interpreted many different ways.
Now of course many, even most, on both sides believe their interpretation is correct and what god\the writer intended, however because of that, I doubt there is a single CHRISTIAN on Youtube that hasn't been told they don't understand the bible from equally devout Christians. If you disagree with many Christians, why does it surprise you that you'd disagree with atheists?
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
The "wagons circle" around evolution because it is one of the most solidly evidenced theories of science under attack from the a significant, politically powerful section of the populace.
I don't pretend to have read the bible, but I have yet to see the weaknesses I am aware of properly addressed. Even putting that aside I have never been given any viable reason to believe it.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
now you can't be serious about the biblical bafonary! lol, that was funny, and you have to admit that a lot of atheist do know their shit, i still read the bible.
this was cool bro, i hope you two continue the discussion.
freethinker3161 2 years ago
This video is so much easier for me to listen to than the other videos I have seen of TheAtheistAntidote.
perditiontheelder 2 years ago
Evolution is the religion of atheist.
In short , some major problems with Darwin's theory:
1. the first single cell organism (life from no life)
2. dating methods (assumptions and inconsistencies)
3. DNA problem. Where does the genetic code come from within one species that would create a new species? Reproduction is self-contained, that is the DNA comes from and only from the parent(s)
4. fossil columns, where Darwin got his original idea, exist in different orders all over the world.
+more
funkymonkey1930 2 years ago
Nice try funky, but religion is defined as belief in a god and the TOE is not a god or involve a god in any way. Also, someone can be an atheist and have never even considered evolution, let alone believe in it.
1140Cecile 2 years ago
1)Darwin's theory of Evolution says nothing about the beginning of life. Nothing whatsoever. That's abiogenesis which is completely removed from evolution.
2)Dating methods are corroborated by independent methods.
3)DNA is the solution not the problem to evolution. Claims otherwise show nothing more than ignorance about natural selection and sexual reproduction.
...
rmSD1 2 years ago 3
1. Darwin wrote "The ORIGIN of species."
2. what "independent" methods. Multiple radioactive dating methods routinely contradict one another. Multiple assumptions are about about radioactive decay. For example assuming the rate of the decay is constant.
3. Nice insult, but natural selection would still only result in traits from each parent. For example if two fish have only gills (and are only genetically coded for gills), how would lungs develop, genetically speaking?
funkymonkey1930 2 years ago
1) Thank you for making my point. That is, "The Origin of Species" does not equal "The Origin of Life" You are claiming (falsely) the latter.
2)Independent as in Carbon-14 and potassium-argon. Using different elements with different rates of decay we can more assuredly date things.
3)Ignorance isn't an insult. But more to your point, many species has genes for things that aren't manifest in the creature. Thus a life form can have the genes for gills without having gills.
rmSD1 2 years ago
1. So what was the first "species"? I mean your playing with semantics there.
2. Those methods often contradict one another.
3. You ignorant. :-) What makes them manifest in the first place, so mates would seek them out?
funkymonkey1930 2 years ago
1) That wasn't your claim. You're claim was that Darwin's theory of evolution was about the origin of life it isn't!!! Look up abiogenesis if you want to know about the origin of life.
2) The methods do not frequently contradict themselves (less than 1 percent) and when there are aberrations the dates are not given. That's how we hold people accountable.
3)I'm ignorant about a lot of things this isn't one. Mates seek out genes for a number of reasons. It's not a one liner to answer sorry.
rmSD1 2 years ago
Yeah, gootube comment section is not the best place for debate.
I leave it at this: Darwin stated that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." This complex organ would be an "irreducibly complex system"...
funkymonkey1930 2 years ago
Well we can agree on that much. Now go to your copy of the Origin of Species and finish the paragraph that you started quoting. Finish the chapter at that. Darwin points out not only the faulty logic but how no example exists (as of then). And since his time numerous examples have been put forward all of which have been reduced by good science.
rmSD1 2 years ago
re: Your Point 2.
Quite contradictory to what you say, dating methods often support each other, otherwise the dating is not considered to be valid. Various dating methods include Radiometric dating including the K-Ar, Rb-Sr, U or Th-Pb and Carbon-14 Methods plus other methods such as Obsidian dating, Dendrochronology, Termo-remanent maganism, Termolumionescence,
Fluorine testing, Pollen Analysis and Varve Counting. These are some of our "independent" methods.
1140Cecile 2 years ago
The dating methods you mention DO often contradict each other. If you look into it, you'll find that the test for "validity" is often whether or not they support an evolution time frame. This seems a bit circular, doesn't it?
Are you a scientist? I like how you used "our." The point is there are significant problems with all dating methods.
funkymonkey1930 2 years ago
through random mutation. lungs would take a large amount of time and would have to go through previous forms that were selected for and later developed into lungs. we see the in fish that it is the swim bladder structure that eventually became lungs through selective forces on random mutations. swim bladders can still be found in some fish today (goldfish are a good example) and lung fishes (alive today) use thier own lungs to control boyancy.
you could have used google to find this out.
greycloud24 2 years ago
I love this; watching a focused group of human beings utilizing the internet, through their language and dexterity, to debate against those who dont believe they came from a spec created from absolutely nothing.
beefking69er 2 years ago
"random mutations" would then have to occur on a exponential scale to support a complete change in species. Just one mutation in one animal would not generate the change, no matter what time frame you put on it.
Yes, the old swim bladder argument is quite popular.
Where are all of these transitional fossils? We have fossils of less "evolved" species and more evolved species, but the transitional fossils, which should be the most prevalent, are noticeably scarce.
funkymonkey1930 2 years ago
i don't think anyone claims that one species gives birth to an entire different species, if that is your belief on the theory of evolution than i strongly recomend you go educate yourself on the subject. as for "transitional fossiles" we gave up the search back in the early 1920's when we realized that every creature is a transitional form between its parents and its offspring. the only way to have all transitional forms would be for all living creatures to become fossiles.
greycloud24 2 years ago
WELL DONE
TheAtheistAntidote 2 years ago
There isn't really academic arguments for God. Not because there aren't academic arguments for it, but because most Christians reject evidence based reasoning and science, and are only interested in a twisted pseudo science which they think supports there arguments (seriously, try to find papers on "evolutionary" genetics or any respectable field of biology which try to support creation).
And this is what the core problem with faith is, why its dying out (too unyielding) and why I left.
Wolfau5 2 years ago
The reason we give emotional reactions to your comments is because they're deceptive strawman arguments about evolution. And there really isn't any good reason for you to ask a good and fair question, because of the sheer wealth of information readily available could answer almost any question you raise.
But if you ask a fair and reasonable question about evolution (ie to simply expand your knowledge of the theory) I will give you a fair and polite answer to the best of my abilities.
Wolfau5 2 years ago
3:15 Projecting much? Theists have a book they're given at (or before) joining that tells them what to say when questioned about their faith (the intellectual equivalent of "up yours", assuming they don't, you know, kill them as blasphemers and whatnot).
3:28 Sure, plenty of atheists don't understand religion, but why should we understand Christianity specifically (in fairness we should study all of them and we don't have that time), however ex-Christians know the bible all too well.
Wolfau5 2 years ago
... probably better than many so-called Christians (who don't read the bible, they just learn about it as others teach them).
There's no reason that reading the entire bible is necessary to have a view on Christianity. Its intellectually honest, but not a prerequisite. That would be like saying if you haven't read Origin of species then you can't comment on evolution.
Wolfau5 2 years ago
Simply because you may know more atheists than Christians who've read the Bible doesn't mean most Christians don't read/study it. Further, most atheists I've listened to, & that includes intellectuals like Dawkins, don't know how to read the Bible. For example, most atheists I've listened to condemn the Bible for condoning slavery; however, what's meant by "slavery" in the Bible is contentious as it often refers to what's known today as indentured servants.
ChristianMission 2 years ago
You mentioned how you believe music taps into the transcendent. Sounds like Schopenhauer's idea of using music to tap into the world of "Idea."
(in the world as Will and Idea). Fascinating stuff
PragmaticLiving 2 years ago
Brock, for the most part, this was one of your better videos but I wish to point out certain aspects you may wish to consider. First, you talk about atheists as "Falling from the Faith" whereas most atheists I know would think of themselves as having "climbed out of the Faith" by grabbing onto the overhanging branches of reality. Secondly, you say that atheists lack any belief or understanding of the "supernatural or transcendent" whereas some do and some don't. Buddhists, for example, (cont.)
1140Cecile 2 years ago
(cont.) are both atheists and also have a very high regard for the transcendent. Other atheists have no regard whatsoever for anything along those lines. Still others are open to the idea but haven't experienced anything that would lead them to give it much credence. You really can't bunch atheists together, like you often do, when the only thing they agree on is that there is insufficient evidence to convince them that any of the multitude proffered gods exist. And lastly, you state (cont.)
1140Cecile 2 years ago
(cont.) that the atheists you encounter have never studied "God's word", referring to your Bible, or, if they have, they read it out of context. Now really, Brock, there have been many atheists responding to you who have demonstrated a very good understanding of the bible, many who were actually Christians for many years before coming to the conclusion that the book was written by men who were not inspired by the creator of the universe, men who were lying about such inspiration. That's it.
1140Cecile 2 years ago
From personal experince I know many more athiests who have read the bible than I do Chriatians who have.
redbaron998 2 years ago 3
re. Wagons circling
Supernatural gods aside, if you believe that evolution is a lie or 'just a theory' (equivocation and a lie) you expose your ignorance of the facts. Not to be insulting. Each of us is ignorant of much. Biology has shown a million times over that evolution happens now. It is incontrovertible. Study that with as much attention as you do xtian scripture & you will realise that. If you said the Earth was flat, you would get the same response. (I assume you accept heliocentrism)
xmacd 2 years ago
How does this even relate to DAA's series?
longhornman99001 2 years ago
Brock... I have read the bible. Most atheists I know have read the bible, and most Christians that I know have NEVER read the bible. The Christians ignorance of the bible is astounding to no end.
Once I was telling a story to a half a dozen christian acquaintances, I refereed to a person as having the proportions of a "Behemoth"... to which they all looked at me, and perplexed they asked me what a Behemoth was!
Christians don't read the Bible.
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago 2
Brock, I do admire the fact that you wanted to apologize.
But please realize that after 2:30, it stops being an apology, and starts being another attack. I am sure you meant the best by your apology, but this makes it seem incredibly insincere.
PoDReligion 2 years ago 2
In Brock's defense, in every one of James' videos there were moments of "attack". If you watch the first video in this series, Brock made an honest attempt to have a passionate discussion about their personal opinions on the subject of music. James decided that his reply would be a 40 minute lecture, spending none of the time talking about the passion involved in music. So, I would think that we could forgive a few minutes of Brock returning a little of the dischord.
thereprieve 2 years ago
Very, very annoying video Brock. Response on the way. You've put me in a really naff mood with this one...
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Hey Brock,
A comment on the beauty of music/art:
I'm an artist (love your AA character :)) and a musical dabbler. All arts deal with same dynamics - harmony, dischord, rhythms, etc. In my experience as a visual artist who deals extensively in figure-work, I see those who draw figs entirely by the science of it - mastery of the rules (anat, proportions, foreshortening, composition, etc.). The drawings may look "perfect", but something lacks. There is a stiffness -- a "lifelessness" (cont.)
mtcanz 2 years ago 2
(Part II) where as if one masters the rules, yet executes from more a place of "spirit" or "gut instinct" relying on muscle memory, something else happens. those guys' figures come to life with a quality that really cannot be completely defined.
& even if it could be defined -- that explanation would not be what created the work, rather only a description of the path taken in that journey of "spirit" or "gut".
I think this applies to James' ideas about the chem processes observed. (cont.)
mtcanz 2 years ago 2
(Part III) and it's also analogous of a life/walk in the Spirit of God. The rules (law) are what need to be accomplished (righteousness), but we are unable to keep them - there's no life in it. When born of the Spirit, however, The law of the Spirit encompasses (fulfills) the law (think of law as a circle that lies completely in the larger circle of the Spirit). As we live in the Spirit, the law automatically gets done - and there IS life in it.
Blessings to you, Brock.
Lee
mtcanz 2 years ago 2
Well said LEE
I agree wholeheartedly
TheAtheistAntidote 2 years ago
Brock.. you are retarded... just thought I'd bring this fact to your attention.
In this one video I've seen blatant psychological projection, misrepresentation of scientific theories, blatant lies about the scientific FACT of evolution and the MOUNTAIN of evidence that backs it up.
Do I even have to point out the irony of you being able to make a video and upload it on the internet, but can't do any research on scientific theories and the facts they are based on?
infinity730 2 years ago
Well done for the apology, but -
::raises hand:: I spent fifteen years studying the Bible, Brock; many other atheists are the same way. You can talk about context - GEERUP did as well - but there is a large amount of explaining away you need to do if you wish to justify the passages on permanent slavery supported in the Bible. And you mention "from the Old Testament" like it should matter. Brock, if your morality is TRULY absolute and objective, then why are the moral laws handed down in the
Rithrandil 2 years ago
Old Testament not followed today? Or even the parts of the New Testament that take no issue with slavery?
The point is the amount of things you have to not accept to believe what you do is staggering - you pretty much throw the vast majority of science away. The things I have to not accept to believe what I do is staggeringly small. When amputees start spontaneously regrowing limbs or people rise from the dead after a few days or weeks, or when the sun revolves around the earth, or when
Rithrandil 2 years ago
rabbits chew cud, or when two of every animal can fit on a giant wooden boat that would break apart under its own weight in the ocean, then I think you'd have room to complain about people being ignorant about what it says in the Bible.
Until then, though, all the evidence is stacked against you, so for many atheists being ignorant of the Bible is akin to being ignorant of what was written in the Great Gatsby or Thinner by Stephen King: it matters very little in the grand scheme of things.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
"if your morality is TRULY absolute and objective, then why are the moral laws handed down in the Old Testament not followed today?"
2 covenants; Old, the law - the new instituted by Messiah's death and lived by His resurrected Spirit. The law was death - the Spirit brings life. The law a shadow (filled with shadows), that points to the substance, Messiah. All corruption (including slavery) is a man-made problem. God regulates man's corruption - in doing so, points to the ANSWER, Yeshua.
mtcanz 2 years ago
So two different sets of moral laws were needed. So it's not absolute. Thank you for answering my question.
Oh, and slavery was acceptable in the New Testament as well. Do you support it?
Rithrandil 2 years ago 3
This is probably a mistake, because I can see you really already have your conclusions, but here we go...
"So two different sets of moral laws were needed. So it's not absolute. Thank you for answering my question."
Way to put words in my mouth. No, but the law was imperfect. It was not capable of bringing salvation. Think of how incomplete a picture even your shadow is of you. But it's darkness, expressing what it can of the Thing that's casting the shadow.
mtcanz 2 years ago
So your god created an imperfect law? I thought he was all powerful. Your god could just grant salvation at a whim if he wanted to. Nothing is 'required'.
I put words in your mouth because you *did not answer my question*. There are two sets of moral laws. One for different times. Therefor, the MORALITY WAS NOT ABSOLUTE.
And the new testament still gives the thumbs up to slavery.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
I went through this exact exchange on Krazie316's channel: why didn't god hand down one set of laws for everyone for all time? It seems like a paltry task for the perfect being.
TheRichDarkEarth 2 years ago
"So your god created an imperfect law?"
It was perfect for it's purpose, but never intended to give life. It's purpose was to show the incapability of being righteous by keeping the law - or as Paul wrote, to be "a schoolmaster to chase us to Messiah"
The "new law" fulfills the requirements of the old - a larger circle encompassing a smaller.
"And the new testament still gives the thumbs up to slavery."
a false statement. That it doesn't end it is not a thumbs up.
God bless!
mtcanz 2 years ago
so you are saying that god messed up and that he had to create better laws? because if i recall from what christians proclaim the same god wrote both Testaments. Which would mean god cant be all powerful
Ryoka242 2 years ago
"Oh, and slavery was acceptable in the New Testament as well. Do you support it?"
There are MANY wrong things the NT did not address directly, but it certainly deals with them. LIBERTY. Christ came to set "captives free", but as Paul demonstrated (as well as others), he could be in chains in the flesh and still have complete liberty in the Spirit. Spiritual freedom & eternal life is the top priority but freedom from all captivity is Jesus' message.
A bondservant of Messiah,
Lee
mtcanz 2 years ago
Which is why both of them told stories about slaves obeying their masters and said nothing about how evil and wrong it is.
Great, glad you can dodge that one, too. So like I said: your moral law is not absolute. Thanks for acknowledging this.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
"Which is why both of them told stories about slaves obeying their masters and said nothing about how evil and wrong it is."
The bible also says: "But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
Do you also believe Jesus was endorsing striking people on the cheek?
Your logic is flawed, and your bitterness overflowing. I know Someone who can remedy that -- or better "redeem" you _from_ that.
God bless you, Rith!
mtcanz 2 years ago
Yes, the bible is self contradictory. I think it's pretty clear. And yes, it does. Paul and Jesus bring up slavery. What do they say? Be obedient to your masters. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of freedom, there.
And bitterness? No, sorry, I am not bitter towards nonexistent things, but I spit on your blessings and your snake oil remedies and "redemption".
Rithrandil 2 years ago
"And bitterness? No, sorry, I am not bitter towards nonexistent things, but I spit on your blessings and your snake oil remedies and "redemption"."
And I thought you were being bitter. ;)
Yes, Paul and Jesus brought up slavery. And Jesus brought up slapping cheeks and suing for tunics. The parallel is right there, but you can ignore it if you like.
mtcanz 2 years ago 2
No, I spit on it because false offers of redemption and hidden chains of mental slavery are vile and evil things. I am not a weak willed lamb to be manipulated and controlled by your cult.
So, sure, Paul and Jesus support tyranny. Cool. Paul also tells women to shut up in church and that homosexuality is somehow a sin. ::golf claps:: Such moral leadership your xtian leaders possessed.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
Hey, Rith...I'll let yours be the last word. Sorry to have riled you up. It's not the intention at this end, I promise you.
I appreciate your thoughts - no matter how much I disagree with them.
Peace
Lee
mtcanz 2 years ago
Rith I like you, but the above is exactly what I am talking about in the video.
How can Christians take your claim of Biblical literacy seriously when you say such Biblically ignorant things?
TheAtheistAntidote 2 years ago
I can pull out chapters to support what I'm talking about, if you will - but since there are 36,000 different denominations of you Christians with wildly different views on the Bible, who exactly is the final authority I have to convince here?
Rithrandil 2 years ago
To be fair some of what he says is Biblically ignorant, and some of it is simply based on shallow, popular, English readings of scripture. Many of these misinterpretations are the popular interpretations, and shared by most Christians in some instances.
But yeah, this doesn't make him any less wrong. The Bible and science are at odds not at all.
TheIllegit 2 years ago
And to be even more fair, there's yet a third source of error for his faulty claim that 'science contradicts the Bible' (in addition to ignorance, and misreading of scripture). It's the misunderstanding of where the authority of science begins and ends; i.e. science can tell us that a human zygote can be formed without human sperm and an egg, it is silent on the issue of whether or not Jesus' conception was a fiat miracle of supernaturaly origin.
TheIllegit 2 years ago
*CAN'T be formed, that is
TheIllegit 2 years ago
Rith, here's another:
Matt 5:40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also."
Maybe Jesus wants us all to sue for each other's tunics, too?
Or perhaps there's just a bit more depth to these words of the Jewish Carpenter that have changed the world - the One who still gets people that don't even believe in Him to spend so much energy talking about Him.
It's interesting to me!
Shalom,
Lee
mtcanz 2 years ago
I talk about it because Christians don't shut the fuck up about it, to be blunt. If you xtians kept it to yourself and never talked about it and did not try to run the country based on the bible, or destroy scientific progress, I'd have no complaints.
Unfortunately, seems like the world doesn't work that way. Why are you quoting bible verses that have nothing to do with what I am talking about?
Rithrandil 2 years ago
I have a series on my channel that deals with *slavery* and all revelant passages. You conclusions are wrong.
mdean1215 2 years ago
That's wonderful. I could care less what your series says. It says directly in the bible that non-Israelites could be taken as slaves and kept as property permanently.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
"I could less..." SO why should anyone care what you think or say? You are wrong. The bible Doesn't Say that non-Israelites could be *taken* , this is deception, and you are either ignorant or lying. And I know you think it *doesn't matter* that the notion of property in ANE Israel is different than yours, but it does matter, you can *care less* all you want but your still wrong.
mdean1215 2 years ago
I never said they should. They should care about what the bible says. It specifically says slaves of non-Hebrew nature are PROPERTY to be passed down in perpetuity. Even if this was 'temporary debt slavery' it would still be wrong.
I am not lying. I can quote the bible verses which you apparently wish to lie about. Isn't lying a sin in your religion? I thought your morals were supposed to be absolute and objective? So slavery is cool in Israel but is bad now? Heh. Hypocrite.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
Again, the notion of PROPERTY for you is actually different than that of ANE Israel, but I suspect that little fact is a little too much to grasp for a bewildered ape. Let's stick to thr real issue, you said Israel was allowed to *take* non Hebrews as slaves, please life up to your claim and "quote the Bible verses" at this point I haven't *lied* about anything but you can TRY to prove that if you wish, I suspect if we were to catch you in a lie, NO BIG DEAL, right?
mdean1215 2 years ago
As far as morals and the Bible is concerned, I have a series on that topic too, don't have space to explain it all to a Neanderthal such as yourself in this little comment box. YES, let's just stick to one topic at a time, so please quote me your verse that says an Israelite can *take* a non-Hebrew slave?
mdean1215 2 years ago
Aww, and you're going to start with the insults! How cute, the stupid little xtian gets mad I disagree with his evil little fairytale book.
Yes, property is different for me than an Israelite, because I don't believe people can be property. They (and you, it seems), did. But as for bible verses?
Leviticus 25:44-46. Judges 21:10-24. Numbers 31:7-18. Deuteronomy 20:10-14. Deuteronomy 21:10-14. Judges 5:30.
Suck it. They owned slaves. As property.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
You started by calling me a hypocrite, don't whine like a baby if you are going it give it and can't take it. Lev 25:44-46 says buy (by the way Israelites were prohibited to engage in slave trade EX 21:16, this is self-sell) NOT *take*, FAIL; Judges 21 slavery not here, FAIL; Num 31, slavery not here, FAIL; Deut 20, hypothetical, never happened, FAIL; Deut 21, no slavery here, FAIL; Judges 5, no slavery here, FAIL. Actually they owned 'ebed' which can be translated servant or slave.
mdean1215 2 years ago
Actually, no, you started by calling me ignorant or a liar, so mayhap you should shove the self righteousness up your ass.
So the slaveholders in the south of the US were fine because they just 'bought' slaves and did not 'take' them. Judges 21 had the Israelites kidnap women to take home and use to procreate with - sex slavery, YOU FAIL. Numbers 31 has them keep the young virgin women CAPTIVES to breed with - sex slaves, again, you FAIL. Deut 20 doesn't matter if it's hypothetical,
Rithrandil 2 years ago
Pointing out that you are either ignorant or a liar isn't *name calling* if it is actually true. US bought their slaves through slave trade (basically buying kidnap victims) which was prohibited in Israel (EX 21;16), LEV 25 deals with self sell by the way you said the passage says *take* it doesn't (thus either your a liar or ignorant) Jud21, Num 31 and like deal with assimilating women into the nation through marriage NOT sex slavery, your distorations is based on your bias and ignorance of ANE
mdean1215 2 years ago
And calling you a liar and a hypocrite isn't name calling if it is true - which, for you, it is. Quit trying to justify the fact you're nothing but a slimy little hypocrite who can't take what he tries to dish out. And no, it's not "assimilating" women, it is killing their families and then telling them they are going to be taken and used to make new little Israelites.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
Listen kid, you haven't demonstrated I have lied or that I am a hypocrite (go look up the word, moron). You said that Israelites could *take* and none of the passages you used for support don't say *take* so far you are the one that is lying. As far the women, you have *no ideal* when it comes to ANE history, But I have addressed all of this COMPLETE NONSENSE in my videos, I just don't have the room on a comments board.
mdean1215 2 years ago
Deut 20 being a hypothetical does matter and it isn't actually dealing with slavery as your obviously defining it.
mdean1215 2 years ago
because your god would have allowed it, so you FAIL, Deut 21, sex slaves again,
Judges 5, using female captives as sex slaves again, you fucking fail. Seriously, do you fail at everything else as much as you fail at your own fairy tale?
So no, you fail at everything, once again. These PEOPLE were passed down. It was permanent. Your attempt to justify this because they PURCHASED the slave instead of kidnapped them from their home (a point in which you are wrong, by the way, read your)
Rithrandil 2 years ago
own fucking book) is as horrible and vile as Southerns justifying black slavery by saying they were caring for a race too enfeebled and unintelligent to survive on their own.
Sorry, you're nothing but a vile, twisted little manchild who supports slavery. Oh, and you're a liar and a hypocrite. Have a nice life, I have better things to do then talk to someone with the moral character of Goebbels or Torquemada.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
Now, here is were you impose your personal biased opinions on the text. You said the passage says *take* but it doesn't. I am not wrong at all and your ability to use foul language doesn't mean your right, it means you don't have an advanced vocabulary. The arguments I use are the exact same arguments Christian abolutionists used pre-civil war but you are probably ignorant of that too. By the way, you are no position to judge me, boy. I am not worried about some coward hidding behind a PC
mdean1215 2 years ago
And you're NOT imposing your personal biased opinions on the text? Or on science textbooks, and history textbooks, and everything else YOU reject? And when did I say swearing makes me right? Another stupid assumption on your part. And advanced vocabulary? What does 'foul language' have to do with that? I use it because I like to. I know about Christian abolitionists (by the way, if you want to criticize someone's vocabulary, perhaps you should spell worlds correctly), but I also know about
Rithrandil 2 years ago
No, actually, I'm not. By the way what, books to you *assume* I reject? Apparently, you mind is filled with unsubstantiated assumptions, when make claims based on unsubstantiated assumptions it lowers your credibility. Swearing seems to be the basis for your arguments because you haven't offered any real premises. "I use it because I like to." Yes, sure you did.
mdean1215 2 years ago
the many Christians - such as you - who supported slavery. Oh, and yes, I am in a position to judge you, as you quite clearly judged me from the very beginning. And coward? Please, I've been an open atheist even when growing up in a fundamentalist environment. You're welcome to come find me and I'll say these exact same things to your smug little xtian face :)
Don't flatter yourself, kid. Some uneducated religious zealot from Texas doesn't frighten me.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
More false accussations? Stop being an idiot, you made a statement, I demonstrated it was false and now you are just filibustering with nonsense. Oh, I know it is SOOO hard to be an atheist in the USA, please, you are a coward because you acting like a *badass* behind a computer screen and I am confident you wouldn't say half this crap to my face, as far as education I have already forgotten more things than you know, and you are still wrong. LOL, YOU ARE CALLING ME A ZEALOT, now that is funny
mdean1215 2 years ago
You demonstrated no such thing. And yes, it is hard. Have you ever had someone try to beat the shit out of you for your belief (or in my case, lack there of)? I highly doubt it, in this country. How, exactly, am I acting like a badass? You've been just as confrontational - actually, more so, seeing as how you started it - than I have.
I also find it amusing that all the shit you tried to accuse me of - lying, accusing you of things when i don't "know you", etc - are all things YOU have
Rithrandil 2 years ago
Deut 21 and Judges 5 deal with assimilating and marriage, and by the way if the marriages didn't work out the women were to be set free, Deut 21:14, not actually sold into the slave trade, like other ANE nations and their laws allowed, you clearly have never read an actual book on this topic but maybe you haven't advanced enough in your personal evolutionary process to do any real reading on the topic, instead you repeat the skeptic nonsense your skeptic buddies echo here on Youtube
mdean1215 2 years ago
Actually, no, I spent fifteen years studying this bullshit. :)
Ohhh, and 'set free'! That means they *were* slaves. They had no fucking choice in the matter. Quit trying to justify this
I have read actual books on this. The main one is called the Bible. Maybe you haven't advanced enough in your cult indoctrination process to lie better for your religion, instead you just repeat the fundie nonsense your fundie buddies echo here on youtube.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
15 years? your profile says your 24, I highly doubt that your Biblical studies during years of puberty qualifies you to be an expert of the subject, Don't twist my words, the women were either to be married into the nation or set free, they never were slaves, you really don't know what your talking about. I am sure you have read some of the Bible, you probably read it like a newspaper, like it was written yesterday and for you personally, which is what I expect to see from a hothead teen
mdean1215 2 years ago
'ebed' was used for all subordinate relationships, All major characters are called 'ebed' at some point, in fact, unlike all other ANE nations, Israel didn't have a word for slave but I suspect you won't be able toconnect the dots on this, Your ideal of slave 'forced labor' is NOT what is being regulated in the OT, The 'property' that the Israelities could buy *not take* was the labor NOT the person and your still wrong.
mdean1215 2 years ago
And Biblical morality is some of the most disgusting and vile "moral" codes ever written or designed. I wouldn't expect a Nazi sympathizer such as yourself to understand it. Go fuck yourself. Conversation over. You fail at the bible, just like you fail in whatever it is you do in real life.
Oh, and for someone whose channel says "no ad hominems or name calling" you sure are fond of it. You're a hypocrite. Go die in a fire.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
"Go die in a fire"? oh you seem SO moral, "You fail at the bible, just like you fail in whatever it is you do in real life.
" WOW, you don't even know me, but hey dude, you probably claim you base all your opinions and beliefs on *facts* please, stop with the nonsense already.
mdean1215 2 years ago
As I am the only one in this conversation who has not tried to justify slavery, yes, I am more moral than you are.
I don't know you, but you felt free to immediately call me ignorant, a liar, a Neanderthal, and so forth. If you can't handle the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. Sorry! Bible backs me, not you. Now go back to lying for Jeebus or whatever it is you do.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
I haven't *justified* slavery (if you are defining it as forced labor) my argument that what is regulated in the OT isn't forced labor, so not only are you a liar about things in the Bible, you are falsely accussing me. You are more moral than me ? LOL, just out of curiosity, can you even make a *moral* argument against slavery or anything else? Your personalized opinions impressed into the text is what is *backing* you NOT the actual text, stop being a fool.
mdean1215 2 years ago
Yes, you did justify slavery. What occurred in the bible is forced labor and forced sexual intercourse. It's slavery, chump. I've provided verses. You've provided nothing.
To answer your questions: Yes and yes.
Stop being a hypocrite. Everything you have accused me of doing you have done in spades - and unlike you I don't make it a point on my channel to diss ad hominems or insults :)
Anyways, I have better things to do than deal with closet CSA supporters like you. Have a nice life.
Rithrandil 2 years ago
I didn't justify slavery (forced labor). The verses you provided don't support what you claim, you are a liar and a fool. You are not in position to determine who is more moral, and you sound like a fool making such statements especially about people you really don't know. If you can actually make a moral argument against slavery, then do it otherwise you are probably lying about that too. Stop being a fool. I have a great life, so I will, maybe you should get one.
mdean1215 2 years ago
Christians don't shut the fuck up because we live in a country that honors freedom of speech but if you really want people to shut the fuck up remember it is best to lead by example.
mdean1215 2 years ago