You couldn't do science if nature was an "irrational process". The very fact that nature is rational and consistent demonstrates that a natural process explains the facts surrounding Jesus' death and its aftermath.
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
If Zeus was empirically proven to be the largest source of hope in the world, that still does not account to his truth. The truth is that the universe, Zeus, or any creator DOES NOT OWE US ANYTHING. Get over yourselves. This is not an argument, it's a plea of weakness. "Without God there is no hope" So hope must exist? Why? What is hope? Why is it an imperative? It makes us happy. So what? Santa Clause makes me happy. Pretending I'm a ninja makes me happy. These are still not true.
@francisco7 There's plenty of happiness in the real world. 'You' said I didn't care about happiness, not me friend. If you don't see why "why don't you just die" is an asshole question...
Are you finished dodging my arguments, or do you actually have something productive to say after all?
Why MUST hope exist? How do you define hope? And if your answer is nothing more than hope is consoling, then don't bother.
Finally, if hope DOES exist, why can't it come from sources other than God?
Well hearing somebody questioning the importance of hope just sounds like an asshole to me. I assumed you really didnt care, so my question was actually sincere. There is plenty of happiness right? Just not for everybody. If you really care about happiness then only about yours, unless you think that people who live in misery can find happiness without hope.BTW I'm not the person you was speaking with before. My first comment to you was:" Why dont you just die" etc.
@franciso7 So you can't defend hope except to get angry that I question it? I'm not getting into a semantics fight either. Okay. Enough said on your part. Happy trolling.
See I'm not trolling, nore am I angry. I dont understand how you can question the IMPORTANCE of hope and pretend to be interested in happiness. Doesnt make sense to me. I'm not interested (yet) in discussing of the origins of hope. Thats the discussion you was having with that other person. My point is the contradiction in qiestioning the importance of hope and seeking for happiness. Anyway you can end the discussionif you want. I for my part am still interested.
@franciso7 First define happiness, then define hope, and finally demonstrate how hope is a necessary prerequisite.
An implicit point I made was that Lennox said there would be no hope. I argue that he hasn't said what he means by hope. Without God, I personally would still have hope. I also argue that hope can't be demonstrated to be a necessary concept (must exist). This is difficult to do since it is self defined. If it's self defined, how can it be used in an objective argument?
If the bible is the truth, then what is written in the bible is the truth? I... guess I can't argue with that. If I question the credibility of the anecdotes in the bible, you can't say that if they were true it would be absurd to think that they're not true... and expect someone to just run with it.
Jesus is well documented? 1) I'm not familiar with extra-biblical accounts of him. 2) Genghis Khan was born of a virgin, there are hundreds of historical accounts of him, therefore he is divine.
At the time of the ressurection, dead people supposedly rose from their graves and walked about... I wonder what happened then? Did they live and die once more? are they immortal zombies still walking about?
The historical records were written long after, and we all know how a story evolves. I can only guess what the story of aliens on earth would be like after 40 years of being told.
Where is god, when we are in pain and suffering and in helpless situation then where is he or it?.books of religions, contains bogus things and tells us that we cant question.....why.
Come on, it's silly to assume that there is an after-life; and more importantly, that it is *necessary*. Your punishments and rewards are here on earth. What prevents people from just getting a gun and shooting people and dying (since there is no punishment) is our moral code; not the existence of an after-life.
@tunkul59 Might be silly, but you should listen to people like Thomas Campbell, who has more solid info on the spirit world. He did work with Bob Monroe and out of body experiences. Many people have actually traveled to these "non-physical" places. You can believe what you like, just don't be too surprised if your awareness continues after your "death" here. Forget all this christian mumbo jumbo; they are chasing their tails with this bullshit for many centuries already. A true dead-end.
@rovingdesertfox Huh? You're kidding right? The mumbo-jumbo from Thomas Campbell is no different than all the other mumbo-jumbo. You can call it a reality-frame, you can call it heaven, whatever; it's just an invention. How about a cockroach? What happens when i step on it? Will it enter another reality frame and hang out with its parents? We're unfortunately still suffering from the inertia of past superstitions; and apparently they're difficult to shake.
@rovingdesertfox Sorry but what you define as "actual experience" is just invention. Anybody can make up and think whatever they want. Eg, the "white light at end of tunnel" experience has been studied scientifically, and found to be related to the way the brain reacts when the body is under extreme stress. There are in fact people that can mimic this even though their body is not under extreme stress. But this in no way proves that there is some sort of afterlife. It's just a biological process
@tunkul59 Congratulations, you have nothing to live for. I find it fascinating that you know without question what others, not just T. Campbel, l have actually experienced. More likely, you are just caught in your paradigm of belief that nothing exists beyond the material. How boring a life.
@rovingdesertfox au contraire mon frere! I have *everything* to live for, every single second of every day. Because i know that's *all* i have; so better make the best of it! I don't know for sure what you or others have experienced, but it's likely just the brain doing its thing, as has been shown time and time again (dreams, etc). It's not another reality, and it's certainly not something that will exist once your brain goes dead.
@tunkul59 You are just as dogmatic as religious zealots. Just admit that this is your theory, your belief. You trust in science, but what makes you think it is accurate? Newtonian science has long been replaced. And don't get me wrong, I really don't care what you believe, but If experience accounts for nothing we live in an insane arena where nothing makes sense. Rethink. (I''d love to see the look on your 'face' when you die and your awareness is still active. cont.
@tunkul59 Btw, what is it that animates the body at one moment and then upon it's withdrawal, leave the body lifeless? Answer: consciousness, your awareness. Your theory: we're all just biological robots. C'mon, you are more than that mon frere!!!!
@rovingdesertfox Wrong answer. It's the brain. Consciousness is a difficult subject (try Dennet's "conciousness explained"), but right now to the best of our knowledge it is a product of the brain (ie, it's the best science we have for now). But regardless, the key question is "what happens when you die", and right now the best science we have sez: "nothing". Give me some scientific proof that it's something else, and i'll believe that instead.
@tunkul59 Like I said, believe what you like. If you are not willing to spend a few minutes and check out some of the stuff I've suggested, keep on with your belief, I could care less. We'll never solve this, so good luck with your materialistic paradigm. I can not disagree more with you.
@rovingdesertfox I have checked out some of that stuff, it's utter hogwash. There's a difference in the way we believe. You believe because you *want* to believe. I believe in something because there's scientific evidence for it; otherwise i don't. Eg, this whole "global warming" debate. I don't choose to believe in it either way just like that; that's the job of climate scientists. If they say "yes, it exists", then i believe in GW. If they say "nope"; then i don't.
@tunkul59 So the scientists are your rulers. You don't think; they think for you. Why don't you do yourself a favor and challenge their findings. From my research, there is evidence they refuse to look at or consider.
How do you know the scientists have your best interests at heart? You are probably lost in the ideology of "they experiment and are totally honest with their findings". Nice try. I'm afraid life has passed you by on that one.
@rovingdesertfox You conclude *way* too much my friend; they're not my "rulers". First of all, it's science which provides the framework (ie, conclusions based on evidence and the scientific process). Now, humans are the ones performing science, and since they are human, of course they'll make mistakes; that's just part of the deal. But it's *infinitely* better than, ahem, making stuff up. What do you have against science? You seem bitter.
Jesus fucking Christ! How many appeals to authority is he gonna make?! At this point, 2/3'rds of his argument are fucking quotes, I mean god DAMN, dude! Don't be so transparent!
@macgeek2004 ; This is his style. Quoting and in turn misrepresenting the quotes to suit his argument, or in other words, a relentless quote-miner. Top it off with a couple of strawmen and we got Lennox debating method in a nutshell.
It would seem you are referring to the human abilities to reason and have intelligence. That's because at some point, a situation developed that caused our ability to reason to be naturally selected for. This is probably during early prehistoric society, around when people started to develop language. At this point, the SMARTEST and toughest were able to survive...those who were just tough were selected against, either by death, or by their inability to woo a mate.
if the driving force of evolution is instinct why would we evolve a mechanism that allows us to choose (of our own free will) to supress those instincts, whats good for society isn't always good for the individual, evolution is not concerned with the survival of a species as a whole rather the survival of the fittest INDIVIDUALS, it would seem that society itself inhibits the evolutionary process of a single species rather than being benificial
Who would quote a professor of language on ancient history, he asks (referring to Professor Wells and his doubts about the existence of Jesus as described in the gospels). Lennox then quotes C S Lewis (professor of language) on the laws of physicist and rationality of the universe. C S Lewis is often quoted by Christian apologists to say the Gospels are history not myth, when there are many bible scholars who recognize many elements of myth in the Gospels, something that Lewis couldn't see.
so for atheists how do you account witnesses to Jesus, the shroud of Turin, Demonic Possessions, etc. Yes I know many people will claim the small specifics on these such as all demonic possessions are paranoid schizophrenic or the carbon dating on the shroud of Turin. However, the evidence to go against it usually pales in comparison to evidence that backs it up. When I watched the history channels "real face of Jesus" I was amazed how much scientific evidence confirmed biblical truth.
Lennox makes the point that Christianity and the resurrection are true because apostles believe it and the church spread rapidly. By this logic, Islam is also true.
Christianity is the only source of democracy? That might be the most stupid thing ever said. Ancient Athens is the only society to have a true democracy.
Not sure how Lennox can say the resurrection is a fact. Because it says so in the bible? Mmmm....Even if events unfolded as they were recorded in that book, because the stone was rolled away, this is evidence for resurrection? There must be several other possibilities that could explain how a body is missing and the stone is rolled away; I would venture that resurrection would be WWWWWAAAAAAAAAYYY down the list of options.
@rovingdesertfox This whole resurrection business is one big hoax. The salvation story makes as much sense as:" Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves" Even the bible says that salvation makes no sense to non-believers(those who perish) . Why would a superintelligent being choose a proces for salvation, that doesn`t make sense to those he came to save ?
@tallliza I'm with you totally; I had friend who once told me his faith "didn't have to make sense", after I asked things he couldn't answer. People like this cannot then connect the dots: How could "God" possibly offer a plan of salvation that doesn't have to make sense and then, when people who reject it because it doesn't make sense, condemn those people to everlasting damnation and agony? It is the fear that keeps them hooked.
They are frightened to death of hell if they don't believe.
@rovingdesertfox As Lennox has previously said he believes in Christianity because of the overwhelming evidence supporting the existence and teachings of Jesus Christ. Given the resurrection is certainly less documented historically, the accuracy of Jesus's disciples life and death are very well documented in multiple historical writings. For instance 10 of the disciples were brutally murdered for sticking to their notion that Jesus was indeed God. The resurrection helped confirm.
@theonlydode That's wonderful; now we just need to determine whether Jesus appeared in his spirit body/astral form, or in fact in a physical body. Again, just because something is written in a book does not confirm anything. You state that since his disciples were brutally murdered, etc, etc. Other than just having faith that that is true, how do you know it happened? right, there is not way to know, Sorry.
@rovingdesertfox That's the same ignorant statement calming jesus was a "fictional character." One of the most common misconceptions of Jesus is that he is only documented in the bible. Hundreds if not thousands of Greek / Roman writings mention and often depict the life of Jesus. Secondly there were hundreds of manuscripts on Jesus, but only the most reputable were chosen for the accepted scripture. Believe what you want, but the facts remain true on many accounts.
@theonlydode It's not ignorant at all, but a logical question to be asked, but of course you will have to say what you did to not answer the question. Your 'facts' are not facts at all, but your preferred beliefs. Makes no difference to me. I rejected the religion many years ago and would rather die than give that organization/corporation of programmed mind control one penny. Any you can also believe what you want, and the facts will always be true on all accounts.
@rovingdesertfox There is a defined line between "preferred beliefs" and "facts." Personality with my faith the line, for the most part, is non-existant. As I've often said God may be perfect but religion certainly is not. No one is forcing you to believe. All I can do is present the defiant facts, and let your personal belief take its destined course.
@theonlydode What you are not seeing is that your defiant facts are only your programmed beliefs. (How many times have you been in church hearing that these things were true when they left out the little detail about how it is all really based on faith, and that even they don't know). If you are truly honest, you will admit this, if not, you are swayed/being controlled by someone else's story. And, how do you/we know God is perfect? And we hear that God is perfect continued
@theonlydode and we are not and therein lies OUR problem. Baloney. And who would expect children to be perfect anyway? You are right religion is not perfect, because they are taking advantage of sheeple who don't do their own research and homework into these matters. My belief is that God is love and Infinite and Unconditional love at that. So you see, there is nothing to get right or someone to please. This frees us and kills religion once and for all.
Atheist have been fooled into believing that all of the scientist's planning can not produce life from non-life but nature without any plains can produce life from non-life.
Atheists, is it logical to believe that nature is smarter than mankind and science?
@HolyRevelation Man, you are boiling over with stupidity. When did modern science start ? A couple centuries ago. Science made enormous progress in 200 years. What science will be able to prove is anybody`s guess.. Nature producing life from non-life is still much more acceptable than creation. Creation in Genesis is so stupid, so infantile, that from the 106 colleges that form the "Christian coalition of Colleges " only 5 yeach litteral biblical creation.
"Sir Lionel Luckhoo KCMG, CBE, Q.C listed in the Guiness Book of Records as the world's most successful trial advocate, used all his annalytical skills & found that all the evidence of Jesus' resurrection satisfied not only his heart but also his mind. He said "I have spent more than 42yrs as a defense trial lawyer & I say unequivocally the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.!"
@mongoidiotjoe Actually mate, thats exactly how a formal debate works; you're opening statement consists a premeditated argument that is to the contrary to that of your opponents.
Lennox starts where he ought to -- with Jesus.Christ. This is where atheists show off their confusion; their totally irrational disregard for honest historical research, while they spout the fact-free and transparently biased opinions of a few liberal Bible scholars.
he is much better "debating". addressing the opposing speakers points directly. Right now, he is just giving an opening speech. that is the structure of this style debate. just wait until the real debating starts...
Not Lennox at his best but still does a good job in highlighting flaws in the "new" athiest argument through out the debate and puts up a very good defence and handles the question of suffering very well I thought.
Reading the comments on here, I can't help but think of the below quote;
"To the believer, no proof is necessary. To the non-believer, no proof is possible"
Are you serious??? the BIBLE is LOADED with Hatred, Bigotry, MURDER (God murdered everyone and thing on the Planet in the story of Noah save Noah and two of every animal haha) Slavery, Fathers murding daughters to "please God" are you serious? Can 35,000 children DIE each night from starvation and disease with such a moral and loving God? Think of how they beg and pray to "Him for help and mercy and???? They DIE!!!
There is a huge difference between establishing the historicity of Jesus and his resurrection. The historicity of Jesus' existence at a Jewish rabbi is not seriously debated among scholars. His resurrection is.
Eye witness accounts are seriously unreliable and carry very little weight as evidence.
@burkerow They do carry at least a bit more weight when the eye witnesses died for what they witnessed. That leaves only two possibilities; one they were insane and believed that they were right but simply weren't, or two they were telling the truth, and what they saw did really happen the way they saw it. Either way the apostles of Christ had to have seen something in order to be willing to die in such horrible ways.
@philosophizer149 1. "They do carry at least a bit more weight when the eye witnesses died for what they witnessed. That leaves only two possibilities..."
Your way of thinking about this is rather incomplete. Let’s look at this in more detail.
People die for ridiculous delusional reasons every single day. The followers of David Koresh believed he was the returned Jesus Christ. 54 adults and 12 children gave their lives for Koresh.
@philosophizer149 2. Suicide bombers believe they’re martyring themselves for God and Islam and 72 virgins in paradise every day. Using people’s willingness to give their lives is the very worst criteria by which to judge the validity of a claim. If anyone gives their life for a belief, that should be the first reason you should be skeptical of the belief. It’s almost certainly delusional.
@philosophizer149 3. Superior weight of eyewitnesses? Professor Simons of the University of Illinois performed a study looking at the accuracy of “eyewitnesses”. He filmed a half dozen people standing in a small circle tossing a pair of basketballs to each other. The film was 25 seconds in duration. Study subjects were asked to view the film and count the number of times the balls were passed.
@philosophizer149 4. Nine seconds into the film a man in a gorilla suit walked into the middle of the group, faced the camera and thumped his chest with his fist. Nine seconds later he walked off the frame. Yet the majority of the witnesses (study subjects) never saw him. It is for this reason that any prosecuting or defense attorney will tell you, eye witness testimony is hopelessly unreliable. Eye witness testimony is overrated in all courts, and you give it too much weight as well.
@philosophizer149 5. What did the eyewitnesses see? People throughout history have reported seeing departed loved ones. The reports of eyewitnesses of a “risen diety” is not unique to Christianity. There are similar reports throughout religious literature. Examples would include Mithra, and Bodhidharma in Buddhism, and many others.
The eyewitnesses may simply have seen “visions” of Jesus in the same way the Apostle Paul describes his vision.
@philosophizer149 6/6 We know the Gospels were written 40 to 70 years after the death of Jesus, by Greek writers who never knew Jesus, nor were they witnesses to any of the events of which they write. Do you think that oral traditions could have grown into hyperbole of what was actually witnessed? There are multiple errors, and contradictions in the Gospels and you can’t take them as reliable historical sources, especially when the claims involve something supernatural, like resurrection.
There is no ultimate justice. The only justice to be found, is in this life. If we haven't made reparations for our crimes or (sins) in this life, then we did "get away with it".
Where the will is set, reasoning is not likely change it. We continue to superficially attack a straw man. Why can we not have respectful truth seeking conversations that profit everyone without letting pride get in the way and attacking the speaker and not bothering to instead attack or test the truth. Truth by definition is exclusive and will come out in the end.
So Lennox, you're telling me I dont rape my sister or little girls because I fear a god may exist and may punish me? Really? Thats the reason? Holy shit. That means, me and every single other guy on this planet should be jailed. We are all closet mass rapists.
Fucking retarded line of thinking. Just because the truth is not convenient for you, doesn't make it false.
@ImBackAJ20101 " I fear a god may exist and may punish me?" No, obviously you missed the earlier recording. He said atheist can be good. His point is that you have no reason to think your actions are GOOD as opposed to just ARE. Check your facts before you call people retards.
@TheTriumph777 That statement doesn't make any sense. Anyways, in order to seek out any sort of truth you must look at facts no matter where they take you, then try and make a conclusion based on those facts. Religion works in the opposite way, the conclusion is already made without the support of real world facts, which of course is an enterprise doomed to fail.
@KarmaKahn Mar 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
@KarmaKahn Yeh. I'm really surprised he's using these arguments at such a debate. I mean that thing about the professor of Mandarin and if $100 is left in the morning. He's also, AGAIN, quoting the freaking Bible. What the fuck? -_- How about I argue that Robin Hood was real, and was a fox.
Lennox is shockingly asinine. As usual he talks a lot but never arrives at any point. o_O
Maybe these debates should be between Atheists and Agnostics. It'd be more interesting and less devious.
@streetograpy I couldn't agree with more. Lennox's speech was loaded with quotes.
There is no difference in Lennox's line of argument then some Christian monk from Middle Age Europe . The argument starts with quoting others to establish that they are educated. Then there is a claim that a supernatural being exists and that this being is the answer for everything. Then followed by more quotes to try to show they are not delusional.
Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Christians. He was a Historian in the 1s Century C.E. He alone. There was another that wrote about Jesus being killed during the Reign of Tiberius. All established as historical fact. Consider the fact that A.D means "Anno Domini" - In the year of our lord. A man that influenced history this much as not real is crazier to assume than the genius of the men that would have had to have invented such a powerful person. I wouldn't dare quote Ghandi...
@luvlatinmamis You would have thought that if we had a central figure looking over our every move, he would have made himself known to us, and said hello every now and then, (and wanted us to hear the word directly from his mouth, instead of the multitude of interpretations) must it be that hard for an all powerful force such as "god" to do, instead we have Lennox (on the stand) clutching at straws, and be done with the devil once and for all.
@streetography That's a simple minded statement. You're assuming that God must think the same way you do in order to exist. To be honest there is far more to your statement than I could possibly cover in 300 words. I don't really see a point in it either. I think Lennox can explain it to you, as it turns out he's talking right now lol.
Great, here we have a professor of some sort who doesn't even understand the meaning of the term 'atheism'. If even this guy can't understand basic words, what in the nine hells am I debating all those morons online for?
Why is it that when I listen to Shermer I can understand everything he says but when I listen to Lennox he seems to say nothing that I can get hold of.
Becuse he is an Oxford professor, he isn't trying to entertain you with jokes and circular logic, he is trying to teach you. I know it is going to take some effort but turn off the T.V. put your cell phone down and try to learn something. You can get ahold of it but this isn't a picture book . He is speaking to an educated crowd, you just have to try a little harder.
@stevenp25100. I find it very interesting that just because I found Lennox's arguments unconvincing you think that I am uneducated and lazy. I am not an Oxford professor but I have a BSc(Biology) and MA(Education) . I have a cellphone (a mobile in the UK) which I use to text my daughter doing volunteer work in rural Idia. I watched our excellent BBC tv last night, Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs. By my side as I look at my bird table I have a picture book of UK garden birds.
No final accountability after death!..Murderers shooting their way the oblivion and get away with it!...victims without justice! (Without meaning to sound unsympathetic) BOO fucking HOO! the world is not fair, is that prof there is a god? should i believe just because it helps me sleep at night? of course not, if i believed things just because it made me happy I would think I was God!
You know apart from the argument from authority in the previous video he was making a decent argument until he made this gigantic leap from trying to prove a deistic God to pushing Christianity and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Not only does he make many errors in logic but 70 to 80% of what he says is irrelevant. Amazing. Exactly how does he look in the mirror and have any sense of intellectual integrity?
Not only does he make many errors in logic but 70 to 80% of what he says is irrelevant. Amazing. Exactly how does he look in the mirror and have any sense of intellectual integrity?
The Christian dude is so fail with his fallacious dishonest statements. I'm actually more sure of Atheism (i didn't think that was even possible) than ever after watching him.
Dear Mr. Lennox, none of the points you have raised have shown there actually is a God. All of your points have been logically flawed arguments from consequence while assuming a god a-priori. So far, you have lost the debate - IS there a god, not "do I want there to be a god"?
Lennoxs' bullshit is a serious insult to any intelligent person listening to this debate. Considering all of his ad hoc, quote mining and straw man remarks; it's as if he hasn't ever heard of the arguments against his position.
@jonahfransson Only if the vote was by church mice. Anyone with a brain that buys into the bullshit he's selling is deranged. His arguments make the following logical errors: non sequiter, petitio principii, misquotes or quotes out of context, redefining words, etc. His argument isn't compelling nor convincing nor coherent.
Shame that he argues for christianity rather than simply arguing for god. It's interesting that the mind can simultaneously believe in one particular god whilst denying all others. Belief in christianity means belief in witchcraft, magic, demons, angels etc. I can stomach an argument for the existence of god, but not an argument that defends only one particular god and all the superstitious and ridiculous baggage that must be accepted along with it.
lol when he says the resurection was due to a "collosal input of divine power" i was thinking of how much power, how many kilawatts are we talking here? And a follow up to all christian scientists regarding immaculate conception: was jesus the result a god sperm and a mary egg, or a god zygote fully intact? If it were the former I can just imagine someone being like "hey jesus you've got Mary's eyes but thats God's nose" lol.
our universal values i.e. aversion to murder, rape, theft could have evolved just as our willingness to follow and our opposable thumbs have. All of these traits clearly have survival value. Which society lasts longer, one where murder is acceptable or one where it is shunned. checkmate
right of all the resurrection myths in history (almost every ancient religions contains a resurrection) that of jesus is factual because the bible says so..... amazing
Atheism don't have the answers but Creationism does. Clearly, the ridicously small chance (over 1/10^50) that the universe could have been made perfectly enough to support and create carbon based life without a creator - justifies that there must be a god.
Are you serious? If you are then where did you get that propability? How many universes have you observed to make such a calculation?
How do you know that the "finetuning" in our universe is actual and not just apparent? Do you realize that we don't know enough of our universe to make such judgements? We don't have a complete theory of everything. We don't _know_. Invoking a finetuning argument is just premature and stupid.
I love how he trys to use 911 to his advantage. "If your an atheist the terrorists will get away with their crimes so you better believe god will take care of it"
@funknotik that's john lennox, mathematician from oxford, just because you don't understand him, doesn't mean he's the idiot! Hes got some good points, mainly science isn't killing god, its making a very advance creator more plausible along with excuses from humans as to how things should or would be if it were the case, that's including scripture.
@architect333 Powerful fail. This guy believes in all the New Testament miracles including walking on water and turning water into wine. Might be a good mathematician not a very good apologist.
@funknotik well i'm not saying he's a good apologist, as i don't really care if he was or not,these are categories. what matters is certain arguments which atheist seem to think they have figured out. You can't say god don't exist because its unlikely based on limited human understanding. as long as theirs suggestions of creation, unbroken laws, outstanding mathematical accuracy, all tying into the equation, etc. Like i said hes got some good points. you should consider humans are not perfect!
@architect333 Well my position on this is perhaps unique in that I recently discovered I fall into the category of ignosticism. Which is that a coherent definition of god must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. I am however atheist to the god of the bible because anyone with common sense can tell that its just bullshit. As far as rhetoric and debate goes this guy doesn't do a very good job either way.
LoL OK! I'll try to contain my murderous impulses...it'll be hard since I'm an Atheist and you already know what's wrong with us don't you? We're born with tails and horns on our heads...oh and we carry pitch forks.
Don't worry I won't kill anyone. If I want to satisfy my blood-lust I'll immerse myself in one of countless murderous fictional works within the Bible. I'm thinking Revelation...or should I go for Exodus? I love that x-rated part where it says a man can sell his daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7). I don't have a daughter but I guess I could buy someone's daughter & sell her with a markup. Too many choices.
By the way, the word you're thinking of is "sarcasm". Look it up
I've got to say I find it really hard to listen to Lennox, not just because his arguments are pretty vacuous, but because his voice is really annoying. He should try and soften his tone.
Lennox is probably the first actual intellectual heavyweight I've seen from the Christian side. Not that I'm convinced, but he's at least convinced me to do some more work. I'm definitely not convinced at his claim that science was born in Christianity, although I've heard that argument before.
It does have me thinking though. What if the New Testament were true and the old testament were false? Is that even possible? Or is Jesus forever hampered by the weakness of the Torah and Talmud?
"Lennox is probably the first actual intellectual heavyweight I've seen from the Christian side"
Then this doesn't bode well for the Christian side, since his arguments are nothing but the same inane tired crap spouted by believers over and over again.
This bald pathetic party clown just said that God offers us hope and that Atheism offers no such thing. THAT'S BECAUSE ATHEISM DOESN'T MAKE FALSE PROMISES. ANYONE could promise you everlasting wealth, power, and good health in some sort of after life but don't you care whether they are making some empty promise that cannot be substantiated in any way? If you are happy just having that promise then you're a fool and you have no respect for yourself because you think of yourself as a blind sheep.
Lennox wants us to believe that Jesus existed because of what he claims is overwhelming evidence but when the mountains of evidence are presented that contradict his theistic views, he becomes obstensibly blind to it all.
@flabbyhabbybabby1 Wow are you actually suggesting Jesus never existed?
I can name historians who wrote about him (Watch Knowwheretorun1984's video "Did Jesus exist?"and I'm guessing you never even bothered to look for evidence in Israel?
@Onetruthrgv It doesn't really matter to me if he did or not. If he did exist, why all the fake stories about him, like miracles and healings to mention just a couple?
Religious people can never be shown anything. They claim they always knew. They're now even claiming the big bang. Classic - just classic.
Yes, I repeat, "we always knew the universe existed" is a lie. As hard as it is to believe, there were some things, this prominent among them, that we did not know.
Discovery is always, always, always threatened by and despite religion. However, the faithful always play their trump card - omniscience.
"They're now even claiming the big bang. Classic - just classic. "
Actually, they claimed the Big Bang centuries ago in the first verse of the Bible i.e. the universe had a beginning. This had been held in the face of beliefs about an eternal universe. Now we have the failure of steady state and oscillating models. This universe is 13.5 bil years old. FACT.
The problem with a lot of atheists is that they demand evidence for God but they don't actually want to hear any.
Check out magisreasonfaith d org
WorldMoment1 6 days ago
This guys is soooooo GOOD! And right too ;-)
WorldMoment1 6 days ago
"Getting rid of money because it causes Greed".... Hmmm...why not!... Good idea, Lennox
janbuyck1 1 week ago in playlist The Great Debate Lennox vs Shermer
You couldn't do science if nature was an "irrational process". The very fact that nature is rational and consistent demonstrates that a natural process explains the facts surrounding Jesus' death and its aftermath.
Kaddywompous 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
mamainmancj 1 week ago
If Zeus was empirically proven to be the largest source of hope in the world, that still does not account to his truth. The truth is that the universe, Zeus, or any creator DOES NOT OWE US ANYTHING. Get over yourselves. This is not an argument, it's a plea of weakness. "Without God there is no hope" So hope must exist? Why? What is hope? Why is it an imperative? It makes us happy. So what? Santa Clause makes me happy. Pretending I'm a ninja makes me happy. These are still not true.
J0shReed 3 months ago
@J0shReed
Why dont you just die then if you dont care about happiness?
franciso7 1 month ago
@franciso7 I was hoping someone replied to my argument. Should have known better. Bet it took you a few hours to come up with that arrogant question.
J0shReed 1 month ago
@J0shReed
Actually it took me weeks to come up with that question. But how is the question arrogant? Why dont you just answer it?
franciso7 1 month ago
@francisco7 There's plenty of happiness in the real world. 'You' said I didn't care about happiness, not me friend. If you don't see why "why don't you just die" is an asshole question...
Are you finished dodging my arguments, or do you actually have something productive to say after all?
Why MUST hope exist? How do you define hope? And if your answer is nothing more than hope is consoling, then don't bother.
Finally, if hope DOES exist, why can't it come from sources other than God?
J0shReed 1 month ago
@J0shReed
Well hearing somebody questioning the importance of hope just sounds like an asshole to me. I assumed you really didnt care, so my question was actually sincere. There is plenty of happiness right? Just not for everybody. If you really care about happiness then only about yours, unless you think that people who live in misery can find happiness without hope.BTW I'm not the person you was speaking with before. My first comment to you was:" Why dont you just die" etc.
franciso7 1 month ago
@franciso7 So you can't defend hope except to get angry that I question it? I'm not getting into a semantics fight either. Okay. Enough said on your part. Happy trolling.
J0shReed 1 month ago
@J0shReed
See I'm not trolling, nore am I angry. I dont understand how you can question the IMPORTANCE of hope and pretend to be interested in happiness. Doesnt make sense to me. I'm not interested (yet) in discussing of the origins of hope. Thats the discussion you was having with that other person. My point is the contradiction in qiestioning the importance of hope and seeking for happiness. Anyway you can end the discussionif you want. I for my part am still interested.
franciso7 1 month ago
@franciso7 First define happiness, then define hope, and finally demonstrate how hope is a necessary prerequisite.
An implicit point I made was that Lennox said there would be no hope. I argue that he hasn't said what he means by hope. Without God, I personally would still have hope. I also argue that hope can't be demonstrated to be a necessary concept (must exist). This is difficult to do since it is self defined. If it's self defined, how can it be used in an objective argument?
J0shReed 1 month ago
If the bible is the truth, then what is written in the bible is the truth? I... guess I can't argue with that. If I question the credibility of the anecdotes in the bible, you can't say that if they were true it would be absurd to think that they're not true... and expect someone to just run with it.
Jesus is well documented? 1) I'm not familiar with extra-biblical accounts of him. 2) Genghis Khan was born of a virgin, there are hundreds of historical accounts of him, therefore he is divine.
J0shReed 3 months ago
At the time of the ressurection, dead people supposedly rose from their graves and walked about... I wonder what happened then? Did they live and die once more? are they immortal zombies still walking about?
The historical records were written long after, and we all know how a story evolves. I can only guess what the story of aliens on earth would be like after 40 years of being told.
neuromatiker 3 months ago
Where is god, when we are in pain and suffering and in helpless situation then where is he or it?.books of religions, contains bogus things and tells us that we cant question.....why.
Anxietyyou 3 months ago
what is this babbel?
EisEisBaby 4 months ago
Come on, it's silly to assume that there is an after-life; and more importantly, that it is *necessary*. Your punishments and rewards are here on earth. What prevents people from just getting a gun and shooting people and dying (since there is no punishment) is our moral code; not the existence of an after-life.
tunkul59 4 months ago
@tunkul59 Might be silly, but you should listen to people like Thomas Campbell, who has more solid info on the spirit world. He did work with Bob Monroe and out of body experiences. Many people have actually traveled to these "non-physical" places. You can believe what you like, just don't be too surprised if your awareness continues after your "death" here. Forget all this christian mumbo jumbo; they are chasing their tails with this bullshit for many centuries already. A true dead-end.
rovingdesertfox 3 months ago
@rovingdesertfox Huh? You're kidding right? The mumbo-jumbo from Thomas Campbell is no different than all the other mumbo-jumbo. You can call it a reality-frame, you can call it heaven, whatever; it's just an invention. How about a cockroach? What happens when i step on it? Will it enter another reality frame and hang out with its parents? We're unfortunately still suffering from the inertia of past superstitions; and apparently they're difficult to shake.
tunkul59 3 months ago
@tunkul59 Pardon me for thinking that actual experience is different from dogma.
rovingdesertfox 3 months ago
@rovingdesertfox Sorry but what you define as "actual experience" is just invention. Anybody can make up and think whatever they want. Eg, the "white light at end of tunnel" experience has been studied scientifically, and found to be related to the way the brain reacts when the body is under extreme stress. There are in fact people that can mimic this even though their body is not under extreme stress. But this in no way proves that there is some sort of afterlife. It's just a biological process
tunkul59 3 months ago
@tunkul59 Congratulations, you have nothing to live for. I find it fascinating that you know without question what others, not just T. Campbel, l have actually experienced. More likely, you are just caught in your paradigm of belief that nothing exists beyond the material. How boring a life.
rovingdesertfox 3 months ago
@rovingdesertfox au contraire mon frere! I have *everything* to live for, every single second of every day. Because i know that's *all* i have; so better make the best of it! I don't know for sure what you or others have experienced, but it's likely just the brain doing its thing, as has been shown time and time again (dreams, etc). It's not another reality, and it's certainly not something that will exist once your brain goes dead.
tunkul59 3 months ago
@tunkul59 You are just as dogmatic as religious zealots. Just admit that this is your theory, your belief. You trust in science, but what makes you think it is accurate? Newtonian science has long been replaced. And don't get me wrong, I really don't care what you believe, but If experience accounts for nothing we live in an insane arena where nothing makes sense. Rethink. (I''d love to see the look on your 'face' when you die and your awareness is still active. cont.
rovingdesertfox 3 months ago
@tunkul59 Btw, what is it that animates the body at one moment and then upon it's withdrawal, leave the body lifeless? Answer: consciousness, your awareness. Your theory: we're all just biological robots. C'mon, you are more than that mon frere!!!!
rovingdesertfox 3 months ago
@rovingdesertfox Wrong answer. It's the brain. Consciousness is a difficult subject (try Dennet's "conciousness explained"), but right now to the best of our knowledge it is a product of the brain (ie, it's the best science we have for now). But regardless, the key question is "what happens when you die", and right now the best science we have sez: "nothing". Give me some scientific proof that it's something else, and i'll believe that instead.
tunkul59 3 months ago
@tunkul59 Like I said, believe what you like. If you are not willing to spend a few minutes and check out some of the stuff I've suggested, keep on with your belief, I could care less. We'll never solve this, so good luck with your materialistic paradigm. I can not disagree more with you.
rovingdesertfox 3 months ago
@rovingdesertfox I have checked out some of that stuff, it's utter hogwash. There's a difference in the way we believe. You believe because you *want* to believe. I believe in something because there's scientific evidence for it; otherwise i don't. Eg, this whole "global warming" debate. I don't choose to believe in it either way just like that; that's the job of climate scientists. If they say "yes, it exists", then i believe in GW. If they say "nope"; then i don't.
tunkul59 3 months ago
@tunkul59 So the scientists are your rulers. You don't think; they think for you. Why don't you do yourself a favor and challenge their findings. From my research, there is evidence they refuse to look at or consider.
How do you know the scientists have your best interests at heart? You are probably lost in the ideology of "they experiment and are totally honest with their findings". Nice try. I'm afraid life has passed you by on that one.
rovingdesertfox 3 months ago
@rovingdesertfox You conclude *way* too much my friend; they're not my "rulers". First of all, it's science which provides the framework (ie, conclusions based on evidence and the scientific process). Now, humans are the ones performing science, and since they are human, of course they'll make mistakes; that's just part of the deal. But it's *infinitely* better than, ahem, making stuff up. What do you have against science? You seem bitter.
tunkul59 3 months ago
I can't stand Lennox's voice... that makes what he says more irritable
ElijahBailey2000 5 months ago
You are right . Anyone can kill without being punish. This is sad but true.
Mr123javen 5 months ago
Very upset that they cut out stuff.
Misterscout 5 months ago
Jesus fucking Christ! How many appeals to authority is he gonna make?! At this point, 2/3'rds of his argument are fucking quotes, I mean god DAMN, dude! Don't be so transparent!
macgeek2004 6 months ago
@macgeek2004 ; This is his style. Quoting and in turn misrepresenting the quotes to suit his argument, or in other words, a relentless quote-miner. Top it off with a couple of strawmen and we got Lennox debating method in a nutshell.
pinkdeath82 6 months ago
@aaronlowdon
It would seem you are referring to the human abilities to reason and have intelligence. That's because at some point, a situation developed that caused our ability to reason to be naturally selected for. This is probably during early prehistoric society, around when people started to develop language. At this point, the SMARTEST and toughest were able to survive...those who were just tough were selected against, either by death, or by their inability to woo a mate.
macgeek2004 6 months ago
@macgeek2004 do you have any evidence of this? any eye witness? any absolute proof?
SixStringDeity 4 months ago
if the driving force of evolution is instinct why would we evolve a mechanism that allows us to choose (of our own free will) to supress those instincts, whats good for society isn't always good for the individual, evolution is not concerned with the survival of a species as a whole rather the survival of the fittest INDIVIDUALS, it would seem that society itself inhibits the evolutionary process of a single species rather than being benificial
AaronLowden 7 months ago
Who would quote a professor of language on ancient history, he asks (referring to Professor Wells and his doubts about the existence of Jesus as described in the gospels). Lennox then quotes C S Lewis (professor of language) on the laws of physicist and rationality of the universe. C S Lewis is often quoted by Christian apologists to say the Gospels are history not myth, when there are many bible scholars who recognize many elements of myth in the Gospels, something that Lewis couldn't see.
macroman52 7 months ago
I have debated many atheists and you are just flogging a dead horse.
SoldierOfChrist110 7 months ago
so for atheists how do you account witnesses to Jesus, the shroud of Turin, Demonic Possessions, etc. Yes I know many people will claim the small specifics on these such as all demonic possessions are paranoid schizophrenic or the carbon dating on the shroud of Turin. However, the evidence to go against it usually pales in comparison to evidence that backs it up. When I watched the history channels "real face of Jesus" I was amazed how much scientific evidence confirmed biblical truth.
bpolyamorousb 7 months ago
And no ancient historian questions whether Jesus exists or not? Richard Carrier.
Lennox, shut the hell up. He can't tell bias between evidence.
kfk4life 8 months ago
Argument from Authority much?
kfk4life 8 months ago
@kfk4life That would only be true if he did not offer an explanation, but he did. It is a formal debate, you use citations then explanations.
07Aristotle 7 months ago
Lennox makes the point that Christianity and the resurrection are true because apostles believe it and the church spread rapidly. By this logic, Islam is also true.
samusssbm85 8 months ago
Christianity is the only source of democracy? That might be the most stupid thing ever said. Ancient Athens is the only society to have a true democracy.
samusssbm85 8 months ago
Why would a champion defence lawyer have anything intellectually honest to say about the historicity of Jesus?
mutbutyt 9 months ago
Comment removed
tallliza 9 months ago
Not sure how Lennox can say the resurrection is a fact. Because it says so in the bible? Mmmm....Even if events unfolded as they were recorded in that book, because the stone was rolled away, this is evidence for resurrection? There must be several other possibilities that could explain how a body is missing and the stone is rolled away; I would venture that resurrection would be WWWWWAAAAAAAAAYYY down the list of options.
rovingdesertfox 9 months ago 5
@rovingdesertfox This whole resurrection business is one big hoax. The salvation story makes as much sense as:" Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves" Even the bible says that salvation makes no sense to non-believers(those who perish) . Why would a superintelligent being choose a proces for salvation, that doesn`t make sense to those he came to save ?
tallliza 9 months ago
@tallliza I'm with you totally; I had friend who once told me his faith "didn't have to make sense", after I asked things he couldn't answer. People like this cannot then connect the dots: How could "God" possibly offer a plan of salvation that doesn't have to make sense and then, when people who reject it because it doesn't make sense, condemn those people to everlasting damnation and agony? It is the fear that keeps them hooked.
They are frightened to death of hell if they don't believe.
rovingdesertfox 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rovingdesertfox Nothing that is written in the bible has ever been proven to be false. Is that not enough to make it a fact?
mrcolbusmaximus 7 months ago
@rovingdesertfox Even if there were people who hated Jesus watching the tomb making sure no one came to take the body to claim he resurrected?
isOneRight 3 months ago
@isOneRight I would re-write that. I cannot make any sense out of it.
rovingdesertfox 3 months ago
@rovingdesertfox As Lennox has previously said he believes in Christianity because of the overwhelming evidence supporting the existence and teachings of Jesus Christ. Given the resurrection is certainly less documented historically, the accuracy of Jesus's disciples life and death are very well documented in multiple historical writings. For instance 10 of the disciples were brutally murdered for sticking to their notion that Jesus was indeed God. The resurrection helped confirm.
theonlydode 2 weeks ago
@theonlydode That's wonderful; now we just need to determine whether Jesus appeared in his spirit body/astral form, or in fact in a physical body. Again, just because something is written in a book does not confirm anything. You state that since his disciples were brutally murdered, etc, etc. Other than just having faith that that is true, how do you know it happened? right, there is not way to know, Sorry.
rovingdesertfox 2 weeks ago
@rovingdesertfox That's the same ignorant statement calming jesus was a "fictional character." One of the most common misconceptions of Jesus is that he is only documented in the bible. Hundreds if not thousands of Greek / Roman writings mention and often depict the life of Jesus. Secondly there were hundreds of manuscripts on Jesus, but only the most reputable were chosen for the accepted scripture. Believe what you want, but the facts remain true on many accounts.
theonlydode 2 weeks ago
@theonlydode It's not ignorant at all, but a logical question to be asked, but of course you will have to say what you did to not answer the question. Your 'facts' are not facts at all, but your preferred beliefs. Makes no difference to me. I rejected the religion many years ago and would rather die than give that organization/corporation of programmed mind control one penny. Any you can also believe what you want, and the facts will always be true on all accounts.
rovingdesertfox 2 weeks ago
@rovingdesertfox There is a defined line between "preferred beliefs" and "facts." Personality with my faith the line, for the most part, is non-existant. As I've often said God may be perfect but religion certainly is not. No one is forcing you to believe. All I can do is present the defiant facts, and let your personal belief take its destined course.
theonlydode 2 weeks ago
@theonlydode What you are not seeing is that your defiant facts are only your programmed beliefs. (How many times have you been in church hearing that these things were true when they left out the little detail about how it is all really based on faith, and that even they don't know). If you are truly honest, you will admit this, if not, you are swayed/being controlled by someone else's story. And, how do you/we know God is perfect? And we hear that God is perfect continued
rovingdesertfox 2 weeks ago
@theonlydode and we are not and therein lies OUR problem. Baloney. And who would expect children to be perfect anyway? You are right religion is not perfect, because they are taking advantage of sheeple who don't do their own research and homework into these matters. My belief is that God is love and Infinite and Unconditional love at that. So you see, there is nothing to get right or someone to please. This frees us and kills religion once and for all.
rovingdesertfox 2 weeks ago
@theonlydode name one that is within 50 years of the time he supposedly lived.
doaftheloaf 1 week ago in playlist The Great Debate: Lennox vs Shermer
Atheist have been fooled into believing that all of the scientist's planning can not produce life from non-life but nature without any plains can produce life from non-life.
Atheists, is it logical to believe that nature is smarter than mankind and science?
HolyRevelation 9 months ago
@HolyRevelation Man, you are boiling over with stupidity. When did modern science start ? A couple centuries ago. Science made enormous progress in 200 years. What science will be able to prove is anybody`s guess.. Nature producing life from non-life is still much more acceptable than creation. Creation in Genesis is so stupid, so infantile, that from the 106 colleges that form the "Christian coalition of Colleges " only 5 yeach litteral biblical creation.
tallliza 9 months ago
"Sir Lionel Luckhoo KCMG, CBE, Q.C listed in the Guiness Book of Records as the world's most successful trial advocate, used all his annalytical skills & found that all the evidence of Jesus' resurrection satisfied not only his heart but also his mind. He said "I have spent more than 42yrs as a defense trial lawyer & I say unequivocally the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.!"
janneyisin 10 months ago
Comment removed
tallliza 9 months ago
not much of a debate when ppl come with prepared scripts and fkkin read them
mongoidiotjoe 10 months ago
@mongoidiotjoe Actually mate, thats exactly how a formal debate works; you're opening statement consists a premeditated argument that is to the contrary to that of your opponents.
aantoine1 10 months ago
@aantoine1 oh. i wasnt aware of that.
mongoidiotjoe 10 months ago
Lennox starts where he ought to -- with Jesus.Christ. This is where atheists show off their confusion; their totally irrational disregard for honest historical research, while they spout the fact-free and transparently biased opinions of a few liberal Bible scholars.
GospelHouseKat 10 months ago
he is much better "debating". addressing the opposing speakers points directly. Right now, he is just giving an opening speech. that is the structure of this style debate. just wait until the real debating starts...
pianoboypiano 11 months ago
"... I have a problem, because I believe in God..."
(8:57)
well put Mr. Lennox
wwyd4akb 1 year ago
Lennox is cool, i think he makes valid points :)
stanyonator 1 year ago 2
Not Lennox at his best but still does a good job in highlighting flaws in the "new" athiest argument through out the debate and puts up a very good defence and handles the question of suffering very well I thought.
Reading the comments on here, I can't help but think of the below quote;
"To the believer, no proof is necessary. To the non-believer, no proof is possible"
MrJenkster 1 year ago
Are you serious??? the BIBLE is LOADED with Hatred, Bigotry, MURDER (God murdered everyone and thing on the Planet in the story of Noah save Noah and two of every animal haha) Slavery, Fathers murding daughters to "please God" are you serious? Can 35,000 children DIE each night from starvation and disease with such a moral and loving God? Think of how they beg and pray to "Him for help and mercy and???? They DIE!!!
TryPeaceNow 1 year ago 2
There is a huge difference between establishing the historicity of Jesus and his resurrection. The historicity of Jesus' existence at a Jewish rabbi is not seriously debated among scholars. His resurrection is.
Eye witness accounts are seriously unreliable and carry very little weight as evidence.
burkerow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@burkerow which eye-witness accounts are you referring to?
MrJenkster 1 year ago
@burkerow They do carry at least a bit more weight when the eye witnesses died for what they witnessed. That leaves only two possibilities; one they were insane and believed that they were right but simply weren't, or two they were telling the truth, and what they saw did really happen the way they saw it. Either way the apostles of Christ had to have seen something in order to be willing to die in such horrible ways.
philosophizer149 11 months ago
@philosophizer149 1. "They do carry at least a bit more weight when the eye witnesses died for what they witnessed. That leaves only two possibilities..."
Your way of thinking about this is rather incomplete. Let’s look at this in more detail.
People die for ridiculous delusional reasons every single day. The followers of David Koresh believed he was the returned Jesus Christ. 54 adults and 12 children gave their lives for Koresh.
burkerow 11 months ago
@philosophizer149 2. Suicide bombers believe they’re martyring themselves for God and Islam and 72 virgins in paradise every day. Using people’s willingness to give their lives is the very worst criteria by which to judge the validity of a claim. If anyone gives their life for a belief, that should be the first reason you should be skeptical of the belief. It’s almost certainly delusional.
burkerow 11 months ago
@philosophizer149 3. Superior weight of eyewitnesses? Professor Simons of the University of Illinois performed a study looking at the accuracy of “eyewitnesses”. He filmed a half dozen people standing in a small circle tossing a pair of basketballs to each other. The film was 25 seconds in duration. Study subjects were asked to view the film and count the number of times the balls were passed.
burkerow 11 months ago
@philosophizer149 4. Nine seconds into the film a man in a gorilla suit walked into the middle of the group, faced the camera and thumped his chest with his fist. Nine seconds later he walked off the frame. Yet the majority of the witnesses (study subjects) never saw him. It is for this reason that any prosecuting or defense attorney will tell you, eye witness testimony is hopelessly unreliable. Eye witness testimony is overrated in all courts, and you give it too much weight as well.
burkerow 11 months ago
@philosophizer149 5. What did the eyewitnesses see? People throughout history have reported seeing departed loved ones. The reports of eyewitnesses of a “risen diety” is not unique to Christianity. There are similar reports throughout religious literature. Examples would include Mithra, and Bodhidharma in Buddhism, and many others.
The eyewitnesses may simply have seen “visions” of Jesus in the same way the Apostle Paul describes his vision.
burkerow 11 months ago
@philosophizer149 6/6 We know the Gospels were written 40 to 70 years after the death of Jesus, by Greek writers who never knew Jesus, nor were they witnesses to any of the events of which they write. Do you think that oral traditions could have grown into hyperbole of what was actually witnessed? There are multiple errors, and contradictions in the Gospels and you can’t take them as reliable historical sources, especially when the claims involve something supernatural, like resurrection.
burkerow 11 months ago
There is no ultimate justice. The only justice to be found, is in this life. If we haven't made reparations for our crimes or (sins) in this life, then we did "get away with it".
Sorry to say Lennox, that's the way it is.
burkerow 1 year ago
Bravo again this is awesome . Thanks Lennox
blopajmbar62 1 year ago
As a mathematician i'm ashamed of this primitive and ignorant way of reasoning. Darn, use your own mind already.
137P0359997 1 year ago
nothing but quotes, as always christians parroting missundertood statements hahahahaha what an (to put it in his terms) ARSE!!!!
fouche1820 1 year ago
Where the will is set, reasoning is not likely change it. We continue to superficially attack a straw man. Why can we not have respectful truth seeking conversations that profit everyone without letting pride get in the way and attacking the speaker and not bothering to instead attack or test the truth. Truth by definition is exclusive and will come out in the end.
Brazillianviking 1 year ago
So Lennox, you're telling me I dont rape my sister or little girls because I fear a god may exist and may punish me? Really? Thats the reason? Holy shit. That means, me and every single other guy on this planet should be jailed. We are all closet mass rapists.
Fucking retarded line of thinking. Just because the truth is not convenient for you, doesn't make it false.
ImBackAJ20101 1 year ago 2
@ImBackAJ20101 " I fear a god may exist and may punish me?" No, obviously you missed the earlier recording. He said atheist can be good. His point is that you have no reason to think your actions are GOOD as opposed to just ARE. Check your facts before you call people retards.
mike10121996 11 months ago 15
Comment removed
GospelHouseKat 10 months ago
why is it not possible for this man to realize that the book from which he draws his believes is a work of fiction?
fidenful 1 year ago
He stole SO many quotes from Dawkins from their earlier debate.
MasamuneDate1 1 year ago
What a disappointment Lennox is, just another bible thumper who spews out quotes, I wonder if he got any thoughts of his own.
KarmaKahn 1 year ago 2
@KarmaKahn
You atheist, your not interested in truth.
TheTriumph777 1 year ago
@TheTriumph777 That statement doesn't make any sense. Anyways, in order to seek out any sort of truth you must look at facts no matter where they take you, then try and make a conclusion based on those facts. Religion works in the opposite way, the conclusion is already made without the support of real world facts, which of course is an enterprise doomed to fail.
KarmaKahn 1 year ago
@KarmaKahn Mar 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
TheTriumph777 10 months ago
@KarmaKahn He only uses one quote in this video. Talk about massive fail.
lamuziq 1 year ago
@KarmaKahn Yeh. I'm really surprised he's using these arguments at such a debate. I mean that thing about the professor of Mandarin and if $100 is left in the morning. He's also, AGAIN, quoting the freaking Bible. What the fuck? -_- How about I argue that Robin Hood was real, and was a fox.
Lennox is shockingly asinine. As usual he talks a lot but never arrives at any point. o_O
Maybe these debates should be between Atheists and Agnostics. It'd be more interesting and less devious.
riggermortisify 8 months ago
Comment removed
nacker 8 months ago
@streetograpy I couldn't agree with more. Lennox's speech was loaded with quotes.
There is no difference in Lennox's line of argument then some Christian monk from Middle Age Europe . The argument starts with quoting others to establish that they are educated. Then there is a claim that a supernatural being exists and that this being is the answer for everything. Then followed by more quotes to try to show they are not delusional.
allman2011 1 year ago
The man who quotes, well if "they" said it, then it MUST be true.
streetography 1 year ago
@streetography Everyone quotes...
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Christians. He was a Historian in the 1s Century C.E. He alone. There was another that wrote about Jesus being killed during the Reign of Tiberius. All established as historical fact. Consider the fact that A.D means "Anno Domini" - In the year of our lord. A man that influenced history this much as not real is crazier to assume than the genius of the men that would have had to have invented such a powerful person. I wouldn't dare quote Ghandi...
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis You would have thought that if we had a central figure looking over our every move, he would have made himself known to us, and said hello every now and then, (and wanted us to hear the word directly from his mouth, instead of the multitude of interpretations) must it be that hard for an all powerful force such as "god" to do, instead we have Lennox (on the stand) clutching at straws, and be done with the devil once and for all.
streetography 1 year ago
@streetography That's a simple minded statement. You're assuming that God must think the same way you do in order to exist. To be honest there is far more to your statement than I could possibly cover in 300 words. I don't really see a point in it either. I think Lennox can explain it to you, as it turns out he's talking right now lol.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
"..Atheism offers nothing"
Great, here we have a professor of some sort who doesn't even understand the meaning of the term 'atheism'. If even this guy can't understand basic words, what in the nine hells am I debating all those morons online for?
I dread the next 6 parts of this debate already.
namnack 1 year ago
Ladies and gentlemen...
kaifroland 1 year ago
Why is it that when I listen to Shermer I can understand everything he says but when I listen to Lennox he seems to say nothing that I can get hold of.
Wiselady16 1 year ago
@Wiselady16
Becuse he is an Oxford professor, he isn't trying to entertain you with jokes and circular logic, he is trying to teach you. I know it is going to take some effort but turn off the T.V. put your cell phone down and try to learn something. You can get ahold of it but this isn't a picture book . He is speaking to an educated crowd, you just have to try a little harder.
stevenp25100 1 year ago
@stevenp25100. I find it very interesting that just because I found Lennox's arguments unconvincing you think that I am uneducated and lazy. I am not an Oxford professor but I have a BSc(Biology) and MA(Education) . I have a cellphone (a mobile in the UK) which I use to text my daughter doing volunteer work in rural Idia. I watched our excellent BBC tv last night, Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs. By my side as I look at my bird table I have a picture book of UK garden birds.
Wiselady16 1 year ago
No final accountability after death!..Murderers shooting their way the oblivion and get away with it!...victims without justice! (Without meaning to sound unsympathetic) BOO fucking HOO! the world is not fair, is that prof there is a god? should i believe just because it helps me sleep at night? of course not, if i believed things just because it made me happy I would think I was God!
BenG549 1 year ago
Peter's father in Family Guy must've been influenced by this dude, sounds exactly like him.
SatanFlaskanOchJag 1 year ago
You know apart from the argument from authority in the previous video he was making a decent argument until he made this gigantic leap from trying to prove a deistic God to pushing Christianity and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
ArrogantAtheism 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Not only does he make many errors in logic but 70 to 80% of what he says is irrelevant. Amazing. Exactly how does he look in the mirror and have any sense of intellectual integrity?
equsnarnd 1 year ago
Not only does he make many errors in logic but 70 to 80% of what he says is irrelevant. Amazing. Exactly how does he look in the mirror and have any sense of intellectual integrity?
equsnarnd 1 year ago
The Christian dude is so fail with his fallacious dishonest statements. I'm actually more sure of Atheism (i didn't think that was even possible) than ever after watching him.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
Just because a bloke named Jesus existed doesn't mean he was the son of God and came back from the dead. There is no evidence for that. You moron.
AndrahilAdrian 1 year ago
Dear Mr. Lennox, none of the points you have raised have shown there actually is a God. All of your points have been logically flawed arguments from consequence while assuming a god a-priori. So far, you have lost the debate - IS there a god, not "do I want there to be a god"?
askegg 1 year ago
His accent is like a spoonful of sugar to help the bullshit go down, bullshit go doooowwwnn, bullshit go down.
ThePTB 1 year ago
this guy spoke all that time and didn't say a damn thing - - - winning a debate by boring people to death....?
1n354a 1 year ago
Lennoxs' bullshit is a serious insult to any intelligent person listening to this debate. Considering all of his ad hoc, quote mining and straw man remarks; it's as if he hasn't ever heard of the arguments against his position.
pillowbugg 1 year ago
I fell asleep listening to this bullshit.
gupsphoo 1 year ago
That's an academic?
hahaa
mauroprovatos 1 year ago
Hoohoohoo.
Lennox would never dare say these things if it were Hitchens sitting there.
ANewHuman 1 year ago
@ANewHuman
I saw hitchens vs. Lennox in Edinburgh a couple of years ago and I must say that Lennox won hands down.
jonahfransson 1 year ago
@jonahfransson Only if the vote was by church mice. Anyone with a brain that buys into the bullshit he's selling is deranged. His arguments make the following logical errors: non sequiter, petitio principii, misquotes or quotes out of context, redefining words, etc. His argument isn't compelling nor convincing nor coherent.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
@ANewHuman
you should have seen how lennox shamed dawkins and hitchens, the atheists should get someone better for his caliber.
kit2ng219 1 year ago
@kit2ng219 Video link?
ANewHuman 1 year ago
Lennox is a wilful and malicious liar
yatter1 1 year ago
John's accent makes me want to move to Ireland!
shernajwine 1 year ago
Shame that he argues for christianity rather than simply arguing for god. It's interesting that the mind can simultaneously believe in one particular god whilst denying all others. Belief in christianity means belief in witchcraft, magic, demons, angels etc. I can stomach an argument for the existence of god, but not an argument that defends only one particular god and all the superstitious and ridiculous baggage that must be accepted along with it.
unapalm 1 year ago
I love lennox, he is such a smart guy and so respectable.
LinkMaster1711 1 year ago
lol when he says the resurection was due to a "collosal input of divine power" i was thinking of how much power, how many kilawatts are we talking here? And a follow up to all christian scientists regarding immaculate conception: was jesus the result a god sperm and a mary egg, or a god zygote fully intact? If it were the former I can just imagine someone being like "hey jesus you've got Mary's eyes but thats God's nose" lol.
johndoe77774444 1 year ago
our universal values i.e. aversion to murder, rape, theft could have evolved just as our willingness to follow and our opposable thumbs have. All of these traits clearly have survival value. Which society lasts longer, one where murder is acceptable or one where it is shunned. checkmate
johndoe77774444 1 year ago
Anyone who mentions "the resurrection" in a debate, automatically loses.
redeyejedi1987 1 year ago
So pathetic. "Amen" said in the crowd. Facepalm...
GlennoMr 1 year ago
right of all the resurrection myths in history (almost every ancient religions contains a resurrection) that of jesus is factual because the bible says so..... amazing
serovar 1 year ago
"Do you say that the laws of arithmetics have been broken?"
"No, the laws of Australia have been broken" ^^
lorenzarthur91 1 year ago
Atheism don't have the answers but Creationism does. Clearly, the ridicously small chance (over 1/10^50) that the universe could have been made perfectly enough to support and create carbon based life without a creator - justifies that there must be a god.
Revelationsification 1 year ago
@Revelationsification
Are you serious? If you are then where did you get that propability? How many universes have you observed to make such a calculation?
How do you know that the "finetuning" in our universe is actual and not just apparent? Do you realize that we don't know enough of our universe to make such judgements? We don't have a complete theory of everything. We don't _know_. Invoking a finetuning argument is just premature and stupid.
BlizBob 1 year ago
I love how he trys to use 911 to his advantage. "If your an atheist the terrorists will get away with their crimes so you better believe god will take care of it"
nessy707 1 year ago
Yelling is not evidence.
stevekap8 1 year ago
Fuckin Zombie christ. Priest dude sounds like an idiot.
funknotik 1 year ago
@funknotik that's john lennox, mathematician from oxford, just because you don't understand him, doesn't mean he's the idiot! Hes got some good points, mainly science isn't killing god, its making a very advance creator more plausible along with excuses from humans as to how things should or would be if it were the case, that's including scripture.
architect333 1 year ago
@architect333 Powerful fail. This guy believes in all the New Testament miracles including walking on water and turning water into wine. Might be a good mathematician not a very good apologist.
funknotik 1 year ago
@funknotik well i'm not saying he's a good apologist, as i don't really care if he was or not,these are categories. what matters is certain arguments which atheist seem to think they have figured out. You can't say god don't exist because its unlikely based on limited human understanding. as long as theirs suggestions of creation, unbroken laws, outstanding mathematical accuracy, all tying into the equation, etc. Like i said hes got some good points. you should consider humans are not perfect!
architect333 1 year ago
@architect333 Well my position on this is perhaps unique in that I recently discovered I fall into the category of ignosticism. Which is that a coherent definition of god must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. I am however atheist to the god of the bible because anyone with common sense can tell that its just bullshit. As far as rhetoric and debate goes this guy doesn't do a very good job either way.
funknotik 1 year ago
@DoNotBeHighandMighty
LoL OK! I'll try to contain my murderous impulses...it'll be hard since I'm an Atheist and you already know what's wrong with us don't you? We're born with tails and horns on our heads...oh and we carry pitch forks.
andyrooney11 1 year ago
@DoNotBeHighandMighty
Don't worry I won't kill anyone. If I want to satisfy my blood-lust I'll immerse myself in one of countless murderous fictional works within the Bible. I'm thinking Revelation...or should I go for Exodus? I love that x-rated part where it says a man can sell his daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7). I don't have a daughter but I guess I could buy someone's daughter & sell her with a markup. Too many choices.
By the way, the word you're thinking of is "sarcasm". Look it up
andyrooney11 1 year ago
I've got to say I find it really hard to listen to Lennox, not just because his arguments are pretty vacuous, but because his voice is really annoying. He should try and soften his tone.
lamplighteyes 1 year ago
Remove god, remove hope? That's a bunch of fucking bull shit and that asshole didn't die and suffer for me, get the fuck outa here.
flabbyhabbybabby1 1 year ago
Lennox is probably the first actual intellectual heavyweight I've seen from the Christian side. Not that I'm convinced, but he's at least convinced me to do some more work. I'm definitely not convinced at his claim that science was born in Christianity, although I've heard that argument before.
It does have me thinking though. What if the New Testament were true and the old testament were false? Is that even possible? Or is Jesus forever hampered by the weakness of the Torah and Talmud?
bluebeard2 1 year ago
@bluebeard2
"Lennox is probably the first actual intellectual heavyweight I've seen from the Christian side"
Then this doesn't bode well for the Christian side, since his arguments are nothing but the same inane tired crap spouted by believers over and over again.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
This bald pathetic party clown just said that God offers us hope and that Atheism offers no such thing. THAT'S BECAUSE ATHEISM DOESN'T MAKE FALSE PROMISES. ANYONE could promise you everlasting wealth, power, and good health in some sort of after life but don't you care whether they are making some empty promise that cannot be substantiated in any way? If you are happy just having that promise then you're a fool and you have no respect for yourself because you think of yourself as a blind sheep.
andyrooney11 1 year ago
Lennox wants us to believe that Jesus existed because of what he claims is overwhelming evidence but when the mountains of evidence are presented that contradict his theistic views, he becomes obstensibly blind to it all.
flabbyhabbybabby1 1 year ago
@flabbyhabbybabby1 Wow are you actually suggesting Jesus never existed?
I can name historians who wrote about him (Watch Knowwheretorun1984's video "Did Jesus exist?"and I'm guessing you never even bothered to look for evidence in Israel?
Onetruthrgv 1 year ago
@Onetruthrgv It doesn't really matter to me if he did or not. If he did exist, why all the fake stories about him, like miracles and healings to mention just a couple?
flabbyhabbybabby1 1 year ago
do they read some Indian philosophy like buddist which makes western philosophy and morality as a subset?
nitsabes 2 years ago
Religious people can never be shown anything. They claim they always knew. They're now even claiming the big bang. Classic - just classic.
Yes, I repeat, "we always knew the universe existed" is a lie. As hard as it is to believe, there were some things, this prominent among them, that we did not know.
Discovery is always, always, always threatened by and despite religion. However, the faithful always play their trump card - omniscience.
They always knew it, just didn't KNOW they knew.
MohawkMangopit 2 years ago
"They're now even claiming the big bang. Classic - just classic. "
Actually, they claimed the Big Bang centuries ago in the first verse of the Bible i.e. the universe had a beginning. This had been held in the face of beliefs about an eternal universe. Now we have the failure of steady state and oscillating models. This universe is 13.5 bil years old. FACT.
The problem with a lot of atheists is that they demand evidence for God but they don't actually want to hear any.
Birdieupon 2 years ago