Are you saying that the Eastern Bunny, Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy aren't real just because there isn't "scientific" prove of them?? you guys are mean : (
@AlwaysDisagreeing - do you honestly believe science will answer questions that religion cannot answer ? Science cannot even find Higs -Boson particle and now we are told neutrinos travel faster than light !
I challenge you to explain how organic molecules became inorganic molecules and life . How 3.5 billion amino acids joined to form DNA molecule and how INFORMATION was put into first living cell .
It is the obvious starting point for study. This opens the whole can of worms and explains virtually everything. Have you read the theory of Roman authorship?
Defn of "arrogance": having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride
Matt has very little arrogance or "unearned" pride. He's highly intelligent ans is respectful at first, but if you're just being an ass- he just returns the favour, which leads me to believe that you are nothing more than an ass you so called "atheist".
@dutchbb1979 Did I ever mention in any text I have written I was smart? I am not saying he is not smart. I am saying he is ignorant, and is a asshole. Quit twisting my words.
@treasuredroperX Ok, then I disagree, because I would never describe Matt as 'ignorant'. Not sure why anyone would say that, unless they have a hidden agenda.
@dutchbb1979 He would when it comes to finances. Matt is not afraid to say that he's stupid or ignorant when it comes to certain things. The difference is that when he tells someone they're stupid or ignorant he's talking about them being that (or he himself being that) on a particular subject, while treasuredroperX is talking about the person in total, or his character. That is something Matt tends not to do, though he has on occasion. He's not god afterall, allthough he is a reverend.
The caller is quite right about Lee Strobel and how he has to be 'hiding cards under his shirt' so to speak. I was forced by my parents to read his 'Case for Christ' and when he comes to the discrepancies between the gospels' accounts of the resurrection he glosses over them as quickly and disingenuously as possible. He ignores all the concrete incongruences about who was where and when, and even went so far as to explain different numbers of angels by saying where there are 2 there is also 1!
@TheElectricTurtle I had some trouble with the apparent discrepancies in the resurrection accounts as well. They are probably the most dificult accounts to harmonize in the gospel story. But Strobel makes a good point that the gospels agree on the core of the story: that Jesus died, was buried, and was resurrected on the third day. These are more vital to my faith than the number of angels present.
@thatt4196 ... and wishful thinking carries the day. Color me surprised. How come you don't apply this low, weak standard of evidence to the claims of other religions? Or indeed any other human interaction in your daily life? Would you accept somebody's minor inconsistencies as *supporting* rather than destroying their credibility about a much larger claim? I rather doubt it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not special pleading.
@TheElectricTurtle But we're not talking about the testimony of one person. We're talking about the independent testimony of four people. Paul's testimony makes it five. How many witnesses is enough to confirm a supernatural event?
No amount of testimonial "evidence" will ever be sufficient to confirm the existence of a supernatural event. None of the Gospel authors were eye witnesses.
Yes, the fact that the Gospels were written long after the supposed events took place, that and the fact that eye witnesses testimony is never enough to confirm supernatural BS that's in the Bible.
@lordrectumslasher - maybe you need a little more education - do some studies . Stobel and Josh are better educated than you . Have you even a Masters ?
@thatt4196 its not a good point at all, they are all over the place and got a few things in common.
You have to look at a whole story.
if 4 people told a story they their friend was abducted by aliens.
some of the friends had the story in orlando then others in tampa, 1 said after the friend was abducted he went to the hosptal immediately and the other said he hard run away from the cops to the city of miami then came back later to go the hosptial.
@thatt4196 like one gospel saying jesus flew to egypt hiding from herod and one where his parents took him straight to nazareth. one he was born in nazareth other born in bethlehem. its not a good point. if it was 4 people of another god with a similar story ud be skeptical
@TheElectricTurtle I would enjoy to crush your parents skulls for brainwashing you like that...I went through the same thing with my father...unexceptable..
Thus is the problem with biased sources. Thus is the importance of science that tries (in pure methodological application) to look at things as objectively as possible.
Hmmm. This is an interesting perspective. I agree that I believe the theist callers never present the things that converted them--they present regurgitated arguments, such as the argument from design, that merely reaffirmed and gave their beliefs a shallow logic. I don't think the arguments theists present in forums like this ever convert anyone, because they are so easily refuted. This must mean that the callers think what converted them would not work on anyone else.
Rejecting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior is not a "head" problem it is a "heart" problem. Just let go and let God. As the songwriter said, "Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus."
I'm sure you think "he" has done something for you. Just as Allah has for the Muslims, Vishu for the Hindus, Balder for the Asas. Psychology is an interesting area of study; if you apply yourself, I'm sure can find it very fulfilling too.
You can go believe whatever you want, but until you have anything beyond a book and potential voices in your head as evidence, could you do us all a favour and keep it to yourself?
@Aaberg123 If you see someone heading towards the edge of a cliff that they do not realize is there do you keep it to yourself? No way! You run and rescue them. God has saved me now and forever through the work of His Son. How can I keep that to myself? To keep it to myself would be the most hateful thing I could ever do. Do with Jesus as you please but at least look at what He has done for you. "I have come that you may have life, and have it more abundantly." Jesus
@Aaberg123 I wonder if your request for this person to "keep it to yourself" is in keeping with the spirit of open discussion and the testing of ideas this forum seems to be going for...
@blackplatypus Now you are talking about fictional books, which have been written purely for entertainment. You were asking about the bible. Take the new testament for instance. No other ancient text has more than a fractional number of existing ancient texts and fragments, some dating to within a generation of the original writings that we have for the new testament. Therefore, we can be sure that what was written has not been changed from the original writings.
@beed56 Also, other ancient texts support many biblical references. Then there are fulfilled prophecies, These include MANY wonderful prophesies concerning Jesus the Messiah.
Of all the 66 texts in the Bible, there doesn't exist one single handwritten original.
The Church ascribed the names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John to the texts later.
The gospels are all written in Greek and there is no indication of any Hebrew originals, which rules out that the authors could be anyone among the followers of Jesus (who spoke Arameic)
Was jesus born during herod's rule or during Quirinius' census a decade later?
The gospels used each other as sources he first one Mark was written at least 30 to 60 years after Jesus died. Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark with them when they wrote their books. John was deliberately written to fill in the gaps and the arguments that the christian faith was having. The stories passed on for years and years before written down.
@blackplatypus I know this comment is a little old, but could you tell me where you got your information on the gospels being contradictory and based on each other? You seem to know a lot and I would like to learn more.
@Aaberg123 Check into the number of extant ancient texts and fragments of the new testament. No other ancient document compares in this regard. We can prove that the text is essentially unchanged since the orignal writings. Also, other ancient texts support many biblical references. Then there are fulfilled prophecies, These include MANY wonderful prophesies concerning Jesus the Messiah. Reasons for further review...don't you think?
@beed56: I take it you've never heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which prove that the books in the bible have been changed quite extensively from the original writings. Many books were omitted from the bible as well, the ones making it in having to go through a committee to gain approval. As for the "fulfilled" prophesies, it's rather easy, when making up a story, to go back to the known prophesies of the coming messiah and apply them to your fictional character of Jesus.
I've allways wondered why in our modern times god doesn't bother to reveal himself for us to believe, after all, he did bother to show all sorts of miracles in moses times like turning a river into blood, or breaking the sea in halves, etc.
I agree with brownbigb: "all god has to do is reveal himself, and i'll believe." I see no reason why Jesus can't "bless" all persons the way he did Saul when he was on the Road to Damascus. I would gladly suffer blindness, as Acts alleges he did, for the same reward.
Evidence makes no difference to those that have already made up their minds. I've learned this hard lesson too many times trusting that logic, reason, and evidence will speak to the atheist. Nice concept, but a complete waste of time!
Try to give drink to a dead man, feed a hamburger to a dead man and you'll quickly see the futility of it. The scoffers and mockers are DEAD in trespasses and sins...leave them to their small-g god (themselves), believe Matthew 7:6, weep, and move on!
if you believe in god you have already thrown out logic and reason and evidence. so why do you think they would listen if you are not speaking any of that?
you are telling about yourself? you've made up your mind and evidence matters not? i am an atheist. all god has to do is reveal himself, and i'll believe.
Hi brownbigb - Sure...I make no bones about the fact I've made up my mind. The Bible says "oh taste and see that the Lord is GOOD". I've put him to the test and he passes with flying colors.Ever hear of Blaise Pascal? He was a French mathematician and Christian apologist. He wrote as follows..."there more than enough evidence for God and the Christian faith for anyone not pre-disposed NOT to believe". I believe BECAUSE of the evidence; you believe not IN SPITE of it, my friend!
pascal was a long time ago. if he saw science today he would think different. the evidence he saw was what he didn't understand. he needed god to explain. god is no longer needed.
you act like the dog you tell tha antifreeze is not good for you. your answer is: "but it tastes good" ignore everything else.
if you have any evidence of god other than not being able to explain certain things, please let me know. my ears are open.
Oh, I see, so because the Laws of Thermodynamics are not "fresh and new", they have no relevance. The same must be true of the Law of Gravity...been around since the (snicker) "big bang", so it too must be null and void. Just as I said earlier and you've confirmed...we ALL believe what we CHOOSE to believe, so please spare me the worn-out and pathetic "there's no evidence for God" crap.Your atheism requires you to "check your brain at the door"...Christianity is wide open to examination!
you don't read english? i didn't say things become invalid with time. but a lot of things that were not understood have been explained. as i said, please show me proof of god, i am all ears.
@brownbigb Hi brownbigb! You have to play fair, and start with a presupposition that doesn't eliminate your opponents viewpoint before the debate even begins!
Check out God's revelation of himself in the person of Jesus Christ! (If you dare!)
@beed56 i could understand if you had the deistic view, because you can't deal with your own ignorance. but to claim the jesus idiocy to be true is moronic. no debate is necessary. first you'd have to show there is a god, before before you could even think about a specific god. the only evidence you eer claim to have is your inability to explain your experiences, or claims from bronze age documents. the supernatural should be a last resort explanation, as all othe explanations are more likely.
To me if you wanna disprove the Bible then do it! People like Josh McDowell chose to make it their goal to show how it was wrong. In the end he couldn't and accepted it. Well if anyone feels so strongly that it's a false book then prove it. So far no one ever has!! The day someone could come out with sufficient evidence against the book I would reconsider my views.
The problem is that your definition of "sufficient evidence" is unreasonable. Anyone reasonable would see that the evidence is overwhelming that Genesis is quite wrong, given that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old, and life on Earth evolved over eons. It's also been proven there was no world-wide flood (it is in fact impossible). But you're not really interested in evidence, you're only interested in affirming your prejudices.
I'm not a closed minded person truly. I live by what i can see around me and by being open minded to great and even crazy ideas. But they have discovered plenty of evidence that the flood did happen. The places they have found fossils, the different dikes i think is the name. Even plenty of not religious scientists have admitted to a at least very large flood. Also let me know besides the flood what do you find unreasonable with Genesis?
No, there is no evidence of a world-wide flood. There is plenty of evidence of localized floods throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, but that's to be expected in any region with large rivers. That does not in anyway validate the Bible's claim of a flood which engulfed the entire world, which is impossible--it would destroy the planet, even people and animals on a boat.
I mentioned other absurdities already. Please reread my comment.
There is no evidence for the flood described in the bible as covering the entire globe nor is it even feasible for the story of the ark to be true. There is no way for them to be able to fit two of every animal species on the ark its ridiculous. Other things unreasonable with Genesis: 2 creation stories where the order of creation of man is different b/w them. Burning bushes that talk, snakes that talk, oh how about the fact that there is no evidence for moses outside the bible!
I agree I looked in the Bible and it doesn't say it covered the entire world argument closed. As for how could they fit all the animals, have you built an ark and tried shoving two of every animal on it? If not I don't think you could accurately say that it can't be done. If you think creation of the world and humans is weird then I don't know how you could agree to evolution. Burning bush was God taking form as a bush. Maybe my Bible knowledge is rusty but I don't remember the snakes talking.
The Bible certainly DOES say the flood covered the entire world. Gen. 6.17: says the flood will kill EVERYTHING on earth. That would require a worldwide flood. 7.19 says the water covered ALL the high hills on the earth. You don't even know your own Bible.
And you don't have to build a boat out of gopher wood to know it wouldn't hold two (or seven?) of each species. That's why we have physics calculations. You can't argue with basic math. Unless you're a fundamentalist, I suppose.
You don't remember the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden? You know, tempting Eve and all that? That's pretty weird if you claim to be a Christian...
I agree with evolution because there is abundant evidence showing it is true. A long, slow gradual change to species over eons certainly makes more sense than magically being poofed into existence a few thousand years ago. Heck, we've SEEN evolution happening, so doubting it is just idiotic.
I thought you meant the snakes with Moses.. Yes I remember the garden of Eden snake. For the flood you have to remember that the world at that time wasn't like today where theirs people everywhere. The point is to kill everything it could have been a smaller flood. Now I won't say it wasn't a world wide flood though cause i don't know exactly. One more thing facts don't make me a better Christian (the whole snake thing and flood info) God isn't concerned with how much knowledge we posses.
The flood didn't just kill people, it killed every living thing "that creepeth" on the earth--hence the need for the Ark. Even if one accepts that people only lived on a small fraction of the earth's surface, the notion that it was all devoid of life entirely is a bit absurd, isn't it? Even deserts have abundant life.
Your second point is nonsensical. If you're not concerned with facts, then how would you ever know whether or not what you believed is true?
even if it's only people, where didn't they have people? australia? south america? asia? africa? europe? there were people living high up in the andes, so the flood would have had to cover up to 15000 feet.
The dimensions for the ark are given in the bible, take that and then take the mass of the animals and its clear that it would easily be filled more than three times over. Theres over 5000 mammals alone so what do you expect with 100000 mammals? Then the next species on the list. Its not going to work. I agree w/evolution because there is evidence for it that isn't just a 2,000 yr old warped anecdote.
Garden of Eden, talking snake, fucks everything up
When someone dies, they do not come back to life 3 days later and they certainly do not ascend off the ground afterward. They also do not walk on water nor change the chemical composition of liquids into alcohol (although thats a cool party trick when you run out of beer).
So what are you going to do now with your new worldview?
haha... I'm sorry if this will shock you to but still hasn't changed my views. I don't believe that any humans can do any kind of miracles at least not without God's help. Jesus was God so in turn He could walk on water, changed water to wine, die and resurrect himself and ascend into heaven.
what proof do you have to believe that Jesus is god, let alone that there is a god?
Just b/c its written in a book doesn't prove the statements true. Nor does having a majority of people believe in it make it true. Millions of people can be wrong, and often have been. Flat earth ring a bell? Millions believed it & it was written in literature of the time, yet the earth remained contradictory to what was considered to be truth.
So w/that being said, what evidence do you have that Jesus is god?
Nothing of knowledge ever converted any christion.But the caller is right it is a transcendent expierence not imperically proven.The God who saved me gave conversation of the gospel from people but nothing anyone said made it happen Also I never had a great mystical experience.I believe God saves despite imperical evidence unlike men who equal knowledge to faith .That does not mean my faith is ignorant.I believe God saves confounding the wise through the indignity and exploits the wisdom
I think what Martin said around 3:20 was insightful. People dish out things like the Cosmological argument to try to justify what they've already accepted. Which is why they don't care that the conclusion contradicts the premise. It's an argument of some kind. That seems sufficient for them.
It amazes me that in almost every one of these Christian Video discussion that there are these people who love to use derogatory comments? Could you guys remember that this is not the place for that?
@NotAnotherGeneration if i were you, i would rather weigh his teachings on merit rather than whether he practices it. if you are a vegetarian and one who eats meet operate a restaurant, wont you eat you vegetables there if they are good at preparing them? please be more objective.
I am being completely objective in pointing out the facts. It sounds to me that you don't think he actually lived it, I don't make that assumption. However, if he did not live his own teachings he would then fall under 1 Cor 5:11-13 and should be completely dismissed by all Christians...objectively speaking.
this caller totally has it right. these guys know there full of it but they want it to look like we're the dumb asses and the ones not being logical. they are the ones that are using logical fallacies left and right. they hope other stupid ass religious folk wont notice the flaw int heir arguments but fall right for the trick and convince then we are, in fact, the illogical ones.
why would i site any examples? all u have to do is listen to one of their argument. the favorite ones seem to be special pleading and making straw man arguments.if u really need examples of this then u obviously havent listened to a theist debate....or u are a theist
I've been called every name in the book, with the most abusive language imaginable, so I have a thick skin and can take anything. Funny how almost every case where that happened was from a Christian who was losing an argument with me... :)
I know what you mean, and when we are rude, and begin to insult the living hell out of them, they must realize that we're not Christians, and won't turn the other cheek! ;)
i love ur logic...u tell me im right then say im a dumbass. well what was so dumb about what i said? im waiting.......ill give u as much time as u need for a witty insult.
Apologetic arguments are usually very complicated because they have to tuck away and hide their OBFUSCATION and DISSONANCE some place where it's not easily exposed. That's best done with a long chain argument--especially one with premises whose exact meanings can be "massaged" as the argument proceeds.
One famous physicist (was it Richard Feynmann?) said that any physicist worth anything should be able to explain his work to any barmaid.
Who was the caller? sounded like a guy who loves to hear his own voice. I could barely listen to the whole thing because it just seem like he wanted to shove in as many words as he could even if his meaning was already understood. It looked like Matt was about to fall asleep.
Max Planck is the Physicist who originated quantum physics, 1858-1947
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. Max Planck
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. " Max Planck
"in thee atheists eyes the word 'purpose' is just a figment of thee imagination. "
Oh I don't think so, one can & still does have purpose outside of believing in or not believing some supernatural entity. One is not, nor predicated on the other.
"atheist also claim that love is just a figment of the imagination"
i'm not sure what gives you this indication, but 'love' is just a word whcih we associate a strong bond for something which we trully admire/like/are fond of.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Darwins tree of life accurately represents his views. But Darwin himself admitted that fossil records failed to support his tree of life image. He concurred that there was a major group of animals (phyla) that suddenly appeared on the rec- ord. He trusted that future dis- coveries would substantiate his views. But actually the opposite is true. After the Cambrian explosion more than 540 million years ago, fully developed animals appeared with no semblance of evolutionary processes
"what im saying is that you guys claim there is no ULTIMATE PURPOSE TO LIFE."
Sure there is, it's WHATEVER one makes of it. if for you, it's blogging on some YT vid, & you find quantifiable meaning in that, then that's your purpose. Simply having a purpose doesn't mean therefore that this purose must extend beyond that which we can't prove w/ evidence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
well that is a personal purpose, but not an ULTIMATE PURPOSE
when i say ULTIMATE PURPOSE im talking about a set purpose an unchangeable purpose that just exist necessarily aside from what one might THINK his purpose is, if atheism is true then there is no ULTIMATE PURPOSE to life.
because an ULTIMATE PURPOSE relies on ther being a God to set it in place like it was a law of physics and couldn't be changed. So in thee atheists eyes the word 'purpose' is just a figment of thee imagination.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
atheist also claim that love is just a figment of thee imagination and that TRUE LOVE really does not exist in the real world, but only in the human mind by some random evolutionary stupidity.
the bible says "God IS Love"
so if love truly does exist necessarily, then God truly exist.
You are claiming that something which exists is not the thing which is defined by the word by which it is defined.
You are also making a subjective value judgment and claiming it as objective fact.
And even accepting these insane premises, God does nothing to solve this, as "true love" would be the opinion and subjective value judgment of god and nothing more.
purpose is a man made concept. my dog doesn't have a desperate compulsion to impose supernatural transcendent purpose on it's life, neither do ants or whales.
what you're saying is nonsense. gravity isn't an object. it's not visible, therefore it doesn't have the potential to emit light within the visible spectrum. the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.
"Just because you think gravity is blue doesn't make it blue"
just because you think god is there, that doesn't make him there.
Yeah, Darwin did admit that. HOWEVER, 150 years later, we have more fossils than Darwin could have ever dreamed. The fossil record of today overwhelmingly supports evolutionary biology.
Darwin was incorrect on many things, but he was only the pioneer in what became modern evolutionary biology. Appealing to the flaws in Darwin's thinking to discredit evolution is the same as appealing to the flaws in Democritus' proposal of the Atom to discredit particle physics.
Yeah, and actually to qualify. Darwin said that the fossil record didn't support his statements AT THE TIME of his writing in 1859. So his statement, as you point out, not only flies in the face of the facts, it's a quote mine of the lowest order.
What i don't get is.....If the universe came from "nothing" then when was it that this so called "nothing" decided "hay, i should gather up enough physical laws and mathematical equations to produce conscious experiencing life forms".???
and if this question doesn't profoundly shock you then you have not even began to understand what it implies.
So intill naturalism can explain the origin of conscious experience, we MUST assume a Creator intill proven otherwise....if that were possible.
You're asking 2 different questions. Evolution explains how life became complex.
If you're second question is, what was before the big bang. Then the answer is No one knows. But realize "I dont know" does not prove a supreme being.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
NO! evolution "attempts" to explain how life became complex, but how do you know that its not just by random chance that so many fossils look alike???
its just a a magic trick that looks like the bunny levitated off the ground but you know the magic trick was fake.
you guys claim the universe has no purpose and that life is simply doomed to the abyss.
thats what i call brainwashed
and you wont care one bit how much evidence you find that God exist.......YOU WILL REJECT HIM NO MATTER WHAT!!!!
o not so, life's purpose is what you make of it, regardless of ones theological perspective. but if for you if self delusion in an imaged after life bring purpose to your actual life now, then hey, what ever floats your boat pal.
I hope you got that I was being silly, my imaginary friends are very scientific and rational.
estuchedepeluche 5 days ago
Are you saying that the Eastern Bunny, Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy aren't real just because there isn't "scientific" prove of them?? you guys are mean : (
estuchedepeluche 1 week ago
@estuchedepeluche
- "Are you saying that the Eastern Bunny, Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy aren't real just because there isn't 'scientific' prove of them??"
No, just pointing out that the Bunnists, the Clausists and the Toothists don't have any right to speak on behalf of their imaginary friends.
- "you guys are mean : ("
The truth doesn't hurt unless a lie got there first.
TheAtheistExperience 1 week ago
That first caller sounds like Chad Vader
CaptCamping 1 month ago
lol what a cool caller
srsguynogames 2 months ago
Caller should be on the Atheist Experience as a host.
atheistram 3 months ago
Josh McDowel did say in his book that the material he summed up in his book will not be convincing to everyone!
ddepos14 4 months ago
@AlwaysDisagreeing - do you honestly believe science will answer questions that religion cannot answer ? Science cannot even find Higs -Boson particle and now we are told neutrinos travel faster than light !
I challenge you to explain how organic molecules became inorganic molecules and life . How 3.5 billion amino acids joined to form DNA molecule and how INFORMATION was put into first living cell .
MegaFraudbuster 5 months ago
@MegaFraudbuster - The Romans wrote the New Testament.
It is the obvious starting point for study. This opens the whole can of worms and explains virtually everything. Have you read the theory of Roman authorship?
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@Franknarfable - yeh ..the romans crucified Jesus and wrote the New Testament ! LOL what next ? Are you sure Muhammad did not write it ?
MegaAngrycat 4 months ago
@MegaAngrycat - The Romans didn't crucify Jesus, he is a fictional character. And of course the Romans wrote it.
Let's explore some of the evidence.
The New Testament is written under the reign of Vespasian (the father), Titus (the good son) and Domitian. The Flavian Trinity.
Luke and Acts is dedicated to Flavius Sabinus, brother of Vespasian. Look up Theophilus.
Next Emperor to HONOR the name Flavius is Constantine. Coincidence?
And I've not even started on Flavius Josephus.
Franknarfable 4 months ago
@MegaFraudbuster You might want to watch DonExodus2's video entitled "How abiogenesis works"
atheistram 3 months ago
@MegaFraudbuster Btw... religion only offers rationalizations. Science offers true answers.
atheistram 3 months ago
what a boring clip.
MegaFraudbuster 6 months ago
I liked the caller's voice.
ClearlyJesus 8 months ago
I want that caller's voice. I feel all soothed now.
PluralOfEverything 8 months ago
WotanMitUs! 14W
RabbiMarvTapirman 9 months ago
The caller sounds like he's calling in ransom demands.
fibrousfeces 9 months ago 3
"George" the caller is either a radio personality or he is an undiscovered one. Great voice!!
thoughtsnatcher 10 months ago 10
@thoughtsnatcher Tottally agree, I actually thought he might be part of a radio show at first. He missed his calling.
Cougar139tweak 9 months ago
Mat Dillahunty is a complete moron and very disrespectful. I am a atheist. But he is just so arrogant.
treasuredroperX 11 months ago
@treasuredroperX
Defn of "arrogance": having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride
Matt has very little arrogance or "unearned" pride. He's highly intelligent ans is respectful at first, but if you're just being an ass- he just returns the favour, which leads me to believe that you are nothing more than an ass you so called "atheist".
therock27374 11 months ago
@treasuredroperX A moron? I think you are the moron when you call an obvious smart guy a moron.
dutchbb1979 11 months ago
@dutchbb1979 Right. Matt Dillahunty is a dumbass.
treasuredroperX 11 months ago
@treasuredroperX You can say that all day long, and he will still be smarter than you. Tough luck kiddo.
dutchbb1979 11 months ago
@dutchbb1979 Did I ever mention in any text I have written I was smart? I am not saying he is not smart. I am saying he is ignorant, and is a asshole. Quit twisting my words.
treasuredroperX 11 months ago
@treasuredroperX Ok, then I disagree, because I would never describe Matt as 'ignorant'. Not sure why anyone would say that, unless they have a hidden agenda.
dutchbb1979 11 months ago 2
@dutchbb1979 He would when it comes to finances. Matt is not afraid to say that he's stupid or ignorant when it comes to certain things. The difference is that when he tells someone they're stupid or ignorant he's talking about them being that (or he himself being that) on a particular subject, while treasuredroperX is talking about the person in total, or his character. That is something Matt tends not to do, though he has on occasion. He's not god afterall, allthough he is a reverend.
sharkjack 9 months ago
@sharkjack I agree, anyone be ignorant in many aspects, but to use it as a general description of someone is something different.
dutchbb1979 9 months ago
The Case for Christ is laughably bad even by apologetics standards.
darklordrandy 1 year ago
Belief does not create truth. Unbelief does not destroy truth.
LUH1214 1 year ago
@LUH1214 That's fucking brilliant! Did you come up with that?
MagisterPridgen 1 year ago
@MagisterPridgen Well . . . it's the truth. Don't know what else to say.
LUH1214 1 year ago
@LUH1214 That should be on a bumper sticker on the back of my car.
MagisterPridgen 1 year ago
George sounds A LOT like William Craig
PT109Boat 1 year ago
@PT109Boat
Egad.
GeorgeFromNY 1 year ago
The caller is quite right about Lee Strobel and how he has to be 'hiding cards under his shirt' so to speak. I was forced by my parents to read his 'Case for Christ' and when he comes to the discrepancies between the gospels' accounts of the resurrection he glosses over them as quickly and disingenuously as possible. He ignores all the concrete incongruences about who was where and when, and even went so far as to explain different numbers of angels by saying where there are 2 there is also 1!
TheElectricTurtle 1 year ago 14
@TheElectricTurtle I had some trouble with the apparent discrepancies in the resurrection accounts as well. They are probably the most dificult accounts to harmonize in the gospel story. But Strobel makes a good point that the gospels agree on the core of the story: that Jesus died, was buried, and was resurrected on the third day. These are more vital to my faith than the number of angels present.
thatt4196 1 year ago
@thatt4196 ... and wishful thinking carries the day. Color me surprised. How come you don't apply this low, weak standard of evidence to the claims of other religions? Or indeed any other human interaction in your daily life? Would you accept somebody's minor inconsistencies as *supporting* rather than destroying their credibility about a much larger claim? I rather doubt it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not special pleading.
TheElectricTurtle 1 year ago
@TheElectricTurtle But we're not talking about the testimony of one person. We're talking about the independent testimony of four people. Paul's testimony makes it five. How many witnesses is enough to confirm a supernatural event?
thatt4196 1 year ago
@thatt4196
No amount of testimonial "evidence" will ever be sufficient to confirm the existence of a supernatural event. None of the Gospel authors were eye witnesses.
lordrectumslasher 9 months ago
@lordrectumslasher nonsense chek my playlist thanks.
matrixlone 7 months ago
@lordrectumslasher
non of Gospel authors were eye witnesses - have you evidence for this?
MegaFraudbuster 6 months ago
@MegaFraudbuster
Yes, the fact that the Gospels were written long after the supposed events took place, that and the fact that eye witnesses testimony is never enough to confirm supernatural BS that's in the Bible.
lordrectumslasher 6 months ago
@lordrectumslasher - bullshit is what you spew out - morons x 2.
MegaAngrycat 6 months ago
@MegaAngrycat
Yeah, there's something wrong with me because I don't believe in your supernatural nonsense, you Bible thumping cunt.
lordrectumslasher 6 months ago
@lordrectumslasher - maybe you need a little more education - do some studies . Stobel and Josh are better educated than you . Have you even a Masters ?
MegaAngrycat 6 months ago
@lordrectumslasher - you come across as a bunch of idiots - unemployed , uneducated ignorent monkeys !
You should hear yourself .
MegaAngrycat 6 months ago
@MegaAngrycat No, you should hear yourself. You don't have to have a higher degree to be smart enough to discount the Bible.
atheistram 3 months ago
@thatt4196 its not a good point at all, they are all over the place and got a few things in common.
You have to look at a whole story.
if 4 people told a story they their friend was abducted by aliens.
some of the friends had the story in orlando then others in tampa, 1 said after the friend was abducted he went to the hosptal immediately and the other said he hard run away from the cops to the city of miami then came back later to go the hosptial.
ud be skeptical.
dcderek24 1 year ago
@thatt4196 like one gospel saying jesus flew to egypt hiding from herod and one where his parents took him straight to nazareth. one he was born in nazareth other born in bethlehem. its not a good point. if it was 4 people of another god with a similar story ud be skeptical
dcderek24 1 year ago
@TheElectricTurtle I would enjoy to crush your parents skulls for brainwashing you like that...I went through the same thing with my father...unexceptable..
gerudgutierrez 1 year ago
Sounds like Anthony Bourdain.
toiletholder 1 year ago
Thus is the problem with biased sources. Thus is the importance of science that tries (in pure methodological application) to look at things as objectively as possible.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
Hmmm. This is an interesting perspective. I agree that I believe the theist callers never present the things that converted them--they present regurgitated arguments, such as the argument from design, that merely reaffirmed and gave their beliefs a shallow logic. I don't think the arguments theists present in forums like this ever convert anyone, because they are so easily refuted. This must mean that the callers think what converted them would not work on anyone else.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
Rejecting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior is not a "head" problem it is a "heart" problem. Just let go and let God. As the songwriter said, "Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus."
christistruth 1 year ago
@christistruth
You're a moron, but somehow I feel you already know this.
Aaberg123 1 year ago
@Aaberg123 Call me whatever you want. Jesus has set me free.
christistruth 1 year ago
@christistruth
I'm sure you think "he" has done something for you. Just as Allah has for the Muslims, Vishu for the Hindus, Balder for the Asas. Psychology is an interesting area of study; if you apply yourself, I'm sure can find it very fulfilling too.
You can go believe whatever you want, but until you have anything beyond a book and potential voices in your head as evidence, could you do us all a favour and keep it to yourself?
Aaberg123 1 year ago
@Aaberg123 If you see someone heading towards the edge of a cliff that they do not realize is there do you keep it to yourself? No way! You run and rescue them. God has saved me now and forever through the work of His Son. How can I keep that to myself? To keep it to myself would be the most hateful thing I could ever do. Do with Jesus as you please but at least look at what He has done for you. "I have come that you may have life, and have it more abundantly." Jesus
christistruth 1 year ago
@christistruth
I know you think so, but you've been lied to.
Aaberg123 1 year ago
@Aaberg123 Yes, but the difference between us is that you still believe the lies.
christistruth 1 year ago
@christistruth
Well, if what you say is true, you should have no problem in supporting your position, and not just claim "I'm right, you're wrong", right?
So do go on. Why do you believe what you believe?
Aaberg123 1 year ago
@Aaberg123 I wonder if your request for this person to "keep it to yourself" is in keeping with the spirit of open discussion and the testing of ideas this forum seems to be going for...
beed56 1 year ago
@Aaberg123 Namecalling is a poor substitute for thoughtful discourse. :)
beed56 1 year ago
God revealed himself perfectly in the person of Jesus Christ!
beed56 1 year ago
@beed56
How do you know? Some guy told you and you believed him?
blackplatypus 1 year ago 10
@blackplatypus hello! Hey...that is what the bible says. And I do believe the bible. Thanks for asking!
beed56 1 year ago
@beed56
Why?
It's a book.
Do you believe there's some guy named harry potter with magical powers?
What about spiderman?
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus Now you are talking about fictional books, which have been written purely for entertainment. You were asking about the bible. Take the new testament for instance. No other ancient text has more than a fractional number of existing ancient texts and fragments, some dating to within a generation of the original writings that we have for the new testament. Therefore, we can be sure that what was written has not been changed from the original writings.
beed56 1 year ago
@beed56 Also, other ancient texts support many biblical references. Then there are fulfilled prophecies, These include MANY wonderful prophesies concerning Jesus the Messiah.
beed56 1 year ago
@beed56
HAHAHAHA
you haven't done an ounce of research have you?
Of all the 66 texts in the Bible, there doesn't exist one single handwritten original.
The Church ascribed the names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John to the texts later.
The gospels are all written in Greek and there is no indication of any Hebrew originals, which rules out that the authors could be anyone among the followers of Jesus (who spoke Arameic)
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@beed56
The entire thing is self-contradictory.
Was jesus born during herod's rule or during Quirinius' census a decade later?
The gospels used each other as sources he first one Mark was written at least 30 to 60 years after Jesus died. Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark with them when they wrote their books. John was deliberately written to fill in the gaps and the arguments that the christian faith was having. The stories passed on for years and years before written down.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus I know this comment is a little old, but could you tell me where you got your information on the gospels being contradictory and based on each other? You seem to know a lot and I would like to learn more.
slickwick45 1 year ago
@slickwick45
Erm, there's plenty of sources you can get from google.
But there's also a very good lecture series (if you have the time) on the YaleCourses youtube channel. Part 1 is here:
watch?v=dtQ2TS1CiDY&
blackplatypus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beed56
"Also, other ancient texts support many biblical references."
If you're talking about references to real places and people (such as Herod) then yes, they do.
Also, kings cross station is a real place and there really is a muggle prime minister. therefore; harry potter is real.
The oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament had their origins in Alexandria in the 4th and 5th centuries.
numerous passages (the last 12 verses of mark for instance) do not appear at ALL in these
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@beed56
I believe Thor makes lighting, because that's what the saga says.
I believe Vishu created the world as the Bhagavad Gita says.
Or do I?
Why do you believe any of the extraordinary claims of the Bible? Why?
Aaberg123 1 year ago
@Aaberg123 Check into the number of extant ancient texts and fragments of the new testament. No other ancient document compares in this regard. We can prove that the text is essentially unchanged since the orignal writings. Also, other ancient texts support many biblical references. Then there are fulfilled prophecies, These include MANY wonderful prophesies concerning Jesus the Messiah. Reasons for further review...don't you think?
beed56 1 year ago
@beed56
The remains and texts of the Egyptians still exists, yet I don't think you believe that Ra really was a god (in human form. Sounds familiar).
In a thousand years, do you think people will use your line of reasoning about the Lord of the Rings and think it was actual history?
Regarding prophesies: Take it as a hint that the NT openly says "Jesus did X to fulfil the prophecies".
If I know X has to happen to fulfil a prophecy, it's very easy to make up a story that fits.
Present evidence.
Aaberg123 1 year ago
@beed56: I take it you've never heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which prove that the books in the bible have been changed quite extensively from the original writings. Many books were omitted from the bible as well, the ones making it in having to go through a committee to gain approval. As for the "fulfilled" prophesies, it's rather easy, when making up a story, to go back to the known prophesies of the coming messiah and apply them to your fictional character of Jesus.
Celephaith 1 year ago
I've allways wondered why in our modern times god doesn't bother to reveal himself for us to believe, after all, he did bother to show all sorts of miracles in moses times like turning a river into blood, or breaking the sea in halves, etc.
sirdelrio 1 year ago
I agree with brownbigb: "all god has to do is reveal himself, and i'll believe." I see no reason why Jesus can't "bless" all persons the way he did Saul when he was on the Road to Damascus. I would gladly suffer blindness, as Acts alleges he did, for the same reward.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
Save as a Child @ a small church dont know the time or date, was not raised as a Xtian, jus know he has always been with me: )
I know and trust him & it has made a world of differance in my LIFE!
jesuskopp 2 years ago
hey blackheartzero...how about you take your trashy mouth and return to the sewer from which you came? And you call US immature?
get a life
tigerlilly66 2 years ago
blackstar...emphasis on ZERO...how about YOU following your own advice, loser!
At least we can speak English without having to rely on gutterspeak to communicate...how pathetic you are.
I can at least respect brownbig. He has a vocabulary larger than 5 words, unlike YOU !
tigerlilly66 2 years ago
Evidence makes no difference to those that have already made up their minds. I've learned this hard lesson too many times trusting that logic, reason, and evidence will speak to the atheist. Nice concept, but a complete waste of time!
Try to give drink to a dead man, feed a hamburger to a dead man and you'll quickly see the futility of it. The scoffers and mockers are DEAD in trespasses and sins...leave them to their small-g god (themselves), believe Matthew 7:6, weep, and move on!
tigerlilly66 2 years ago
if you believe in god you have already thrown out logic and reason and evidence. so why do you think they would listen if you are not speaking any of that?
you are telling about yourself? you've made up your mind and evidence matters not? i am an atheist. all god has to do is reveal himself, and i'll believe.
brownbigb 2 years ago
Hi brownbigb - Sure...I make no bones about the fact I've made up my mind. The Bible says "oh taste and see that the Lord is GOOD". I've put him to the test and he passes with flying colors.Ever hear of Blaise Pascal? He was a French mathematician and Christian apologist. He wrote as follows..."there more than enough evidence for God and the Christian faith for anyone not pre-disposed NOT to believe". I believe BECAUSE of the evidence; you believe not IN SPITE of it, my friend!
tigerlilly66 2 years ago
pascal was a long time ago. if he saw science today he would think different. the evidence he saw was what he didn't understand. he needed god to explain. god is no longer needed.
you act like the dog you tell tha antifreeze is not good for you. your answer is: "but it tastes good" ignore everything else.
if you have any evidence of god other than not being able to explain certain things, please let me know. my ears are open.
brownbigb 2 years ago
Oh, I see, so because the Laws of Thermodynamics are not "fresh and new", they have no relevance. The same must be true of the Law of Gravity...been around since the (snicker) "big bang", so it too must be null and void. Just as I said earlier and you've confirmed...we ALL believe what we CHOOSE to believe, so please spare me the worn-out and pathetic "there's no evidence for God" crap.Your atheism requires you to "check your brain at the door"...Christianity is wide open to examination!
tigerlilly66 2 years ago
you don't read english? i didn't say things become invalid with time. but a lot of things that were not understood have been explained. as i said, please show me proof of god, i am all ears.
brownbigb 2 years ago
@brownbigb Hi brownbigb! You have to play fair, and start with a presupposition that doesn't eliminate your opponents viewpoint before the debate even begins!
Check out God's revelation of himself in the person of Jesus Christ! (If you dare!)
beed56 1 year ago
@beed56 i could understand if you had the deistic view, because you can't deal with your own ignorance. but to claim the jesus idiocy to be true is moronic. no debate is necessary. first you'd have to show there is a god, before before you could even think about a specific god. the only evidence you eer claim to have is your inability to explain your experiences, or claims from bronze age documents. the supernatural should be a last resort explanation, as all othe explanations are more likely.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@beed56 i had 8 years of theology, i am familiar with the jesus fairy tale.
brownbigb 1 year ago
mirrored doppler effect... lol
m00ph00 2 years ago
To me if you wanna disprove the Bible then do it! People like Josh McDowell chose to make it their goal to show how it was wrong. In the end he couldn't and accepted it. Well if anyone feels so strongly that it's a false book then prove it. So far no one ever has!! The day someone could come out with sufficient evidence against the book I would reconsider my views.
Livin4God93 2 years ago
The problem is that your definition of "sufficient evidence" is unreasonable. Anyone reasonable would see that the evidence is overwhelming that Genesis is quite wrong, given that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old, and life on Earth evolved over eons. It's also been proven there was no world-wide flood (it is in fact impossible). But you're not really interested in evidence, you're only interested in affirming your prejudices.
BorisGodunov 2 years ago
I'm not a closed minded person truly. I live by what i can see around me and by being open minded to great and even crazy ideas. But they have discovered plenty of evidence that the flood did happen. The places they have found fossils, the different dikes i think is the name. Even plenty of not religious scientists have admitted to a at least very large flood. Also let me know besides the flood what do you find unreasonable with Genesis?
Livin4God93 2 years ago
@Livin4God93
No, there is no evidence of a world-wide flood. There is plenty of evidence of localized floods throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, but that's to be expected in any region with large rivers. That does not in anyway validate the Bible's claim of a flood which engulfed the entire world, which is impossible--it would destroy the planet, even people and animals on a boat.
I mentioned other absurdities already. Please reread my comment.
BorisGodunov 2 years ago
@Livin4God93
There is no evidence for the flood described in the bible as covering the entire globe nor is it even feasible for the story of the ark to be true. There is no way for them to be able to fit two of every animal species on the ark its ridiculous. Other things unreasonable with Genesis: 2 creation stories where the order of creation of man is different b/w them. Burning bushes that talk, snakes that talk, oh how about the fact that there is no evidence for moses outside the bible!
shonkey 2 years ago
I agree I looked in the Bible and it doesn't say it covered the entire world argument closed. As for how could they fit all the animals, have you built an ark and tried shoving two of every animal on it? If not I don't think you could accurately say that it can't be done. If you think creation of the world and humans is weird then I don't know how you could agree to evolution. Burning bush was God taking form as a bush. Maybe my Bible knowledge is rusty but I don't remember the snakes talking.
Livin4God93 2 years ago
The Bible certainly DOES say the flood covered the entire world. Gen. 6.17: says the flood will kill EVERYTHING on earth. That would require a worldwide flood. 7.19 says the water covered ALL the high hills on the earth. You don't even know your own Bible.
And you don't have to build a boat out of gopher wood to know it wouldn't hold two (or seven?) of each species. That's why we have physics calculations. You can't argue with basic math. Unless you're a fundamentalist, I suppose.
BorisGodunov 2 years ago
You don't remember the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden? You know, tempting Eve and all that? That's pretty weird if you claim to be a Christian...
I agree with evolution because there is abundant evidence showing it is true. A long, slow gradual change to species over eons certainly makes more sense than magically being poofed into existence a few thousand years ago. Heck, we've SEEN evolution happening, so doubting it is just idiotic.
BorisGodunov 2 years ago
I thought you meant the snakes with Moses.. Yes I remember the garden of Eden snake. For the flood you have to remember that the world at that time wasn't like today where theirs people everywhere. The point is to kill everything it could have been a smaller flood. Now I won't say it wasn't a world wide flood though cause i don't know exactly. One more thing facts don't make me a better Christian (the whole snake thing and flood info) God isn't concerned with how much knowledge we posses.
Livin4God93 2 years ago
The flood didn't just kill people, it killed every living thing "that creepeth" on the earth--hence the need for the Ark. Even if one accepts that people only lived on a small fraction of the earth's surface, the notion that it was all devoid of life entirely is a bit absurd, isn't it? Even deserts have abundant life.
Your second point is nonsensical. If you're not concerned with facts, then how would you ever know whether or not what you believed is true?
BorisGodunov 2 years ago
even if it's only people, where didn't they have people? australia? south america? asia? africa? europe? there were people living high up in the andes, so the flood would have had to cover up to 15000 feet.
brownbigb 2 years ago
Are you kidding me? Its simple math!
The dimensions for the ark are given in the bible, take that and then take the mass of the animals and its clear that it would easily be filled more than three times over. Theres over 5000 mammals alone so what do you expect with 100000 mammals? Then the next species on the list. Its not going to work. I agree w/evolution because there is evidence for it that isn't just a 2,000 yr old warped anecdote.
Garden of Eden, talking snake, fucks everything up
shonkey 2 years ago
in the garden of eden. you must be pretty rusty not remembering genesis.
brownbigb 2 years ago
@Livin4God93 Prepare to to reconsider your views:
When someone dies, they do not come back to life 3 days later and they certainly do not ascend off the ground afterward. They also do not walk on water nor change the chemical composition of liquids into alcohol (although thats a cool party trick when you run out of beer).
So what are you going to do now with your new worldview?
shonkey 2 years ago
haha... I'm sorry if this will shock you to but still hasn't changed my views. I don't believe that any humans can do any kind of miracles at least not without God's help. Jesus was God so in turn He could walk on water, changed water to wine, die and resurrect himself and ascend into heaven.
Livin4God93 2 years ago
what proof do you have to believe that Jesus is god, let alone that there is a god?
Just b/c its written in a book doesn't prove the statements true. Nor does having a majority of people believe in it make it true. Millions of people can be wrong, and often have been. Flat earth ring a bell? Millions believed it & it was written in literature of the time, yet the earth remained contradictory to what was considered to be truth.
So w/that being said, what evidence do you have that Jesus is god?
shonkey 2 years ago
Nothing of knowledge ever converted any christion.But the caller is right it is a transcendent expierence not imperically proven.The God who saved me gave conversation of the gospel from people but nothing anyone said made it happen Also I never had a great mystical experience.I believe God saves despite imperical evidence unlike men who equal knowledge to faith .That does not mean my faith is ignorant.I believe God saves confounding the wise through the indignity and exploits the wisdom
polopowers1 2 years ago
Why do you trust your experience was genuine?
ByTor190 2 years ago
I think what Martin said around 3:20 was insightful. People dish out things like the Cosmological argument to try to justify what they've already accepted. Which is why they don't care that the conclusion contradicts the premise. It's an argument of some kind. That seems sufficient for them.
jessemaurais 2 years ago
Personal experience? You might have Schizophrenia. Look it up.
Eric3575 2 years ago
It amazes me that in almost every one of these Christian Video discussion that there are these people who love to use derogatory comments? Could you guys remember that this is not the place for that?
gamhazell 2 years ago 2
If Josh McDowell personally live the message he gives in his books he would have been a 32 year-old virgin on his honeymoon!
See: tinyurl com/yg96tu5
NotAnotherGeneration 2 years ago
@NotAnotherGeneration if i were you, i would rather weigh his teachings on merit rather than whether he practices it. if you are a vegetarian and one who eats meet operate a restaurant, wont you eat you vegetables there if they are good at preparing them? please be more objective.
apexanna1 2 years ago
I am being completely objective in pointing out the facts. It sounds to me that you don't think he actually lived it, I don't make that assumption. However, if he did not live his own teachings he would then fall under 1 Cor 5:11-13 and should be completely dismissed by all Christians...objectively speaking.
NotAnotherGeneration 2 years ago
this caller totally has it right. these guys know there full of it but they want it to look like we're the dumb asses and the ones not being logical. they are the ones that are using logical fallacies left and right. they hope other stupid ass religious folk wont notice the flaw int heir arguments but fall right for the trick and convince then we are, in fact, the illogical ones.
keggerous 2 years ago
Funny you claim that they're making logical fallacies "left and right," but you don't cite a single example. Do tell.
BorisGodunov 2 years ago
why would i site any examples? all u have to do is listen to one of their argument. the favorite ones seem to be special pleading and making straw man arguments.if u really need examples of this then u obviously havent listened to a theist debate....or u are a theist
keggerous 2 years ago
I mistook your comment, I thought you were referring to the hosts being full ot it and using logical fallacies, not Strobel and McDowell. My mistake.
BorisGodunov 2 years ago
its all good...im just glad i didnt decide to cuss u out like i usually do :)
keggerous 2 years ago
I've been called every name in the book, with the most abusive language imaginable, so I have a thick skin and can take anything. Funny how almost every case where that happened was from a Christian who was losing an argument with me... :)
BorisGodunov 2 years ago
I know what you mean, and when we are rude, and begin to insult the living hell out of them, they must realize that we're not Christians, and won't turn the other cheek! ;)
Vegasgodless 2 years ago
@BorisGodunov are you an atheist? i yearn to meet one especially on their deathbeds.
apexanna1 2 years ago
@apexanna1
Yes, I'm an atheist.
Why do you want to meet one on his deathbed?
BorisGodunov 2 years ago
You were right when you said " they want it to look like we're the dumb asses" because YOU CLEARLY ARE A DUMB ASS!!
99minerkc 2 years ago
i love ur logic...u tell me im right then say im a dumbass. well what was so dumb about what i said? im waiting.......ill give u as much time as u need for a witty insult.
keggerous 2 years ago
If you're too slow to get it, oh well!!
99minerkc 2 years ago
Apologetic arguments are usually very complicated because they have to tuck away and hide their OBFUSCATION and DISSONANCE some place where it's not easily exposed. That's best done with a long chain argument--especially one with premises whose exact meanings can be "massaged" as the argument proceeds.
One famous physicist (was it Richard Feynmann?) said that any physicist worth anything should be able to explain his work to any barmaid.
GetMeThere1 2 years ago 3
why do u have thumbs down? that was a great comment :)
keggerous 2 years ago
Thanks! Glad someone agreed with it.
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
@GetMeThere1
Spot on, friend. Excellent point!
GeorgeFromNY 1 year ago
Who was the caller? sounded like a guy who loves to hear his own voice. I could barely listen to the whole thing because it just seem like he wanted to shove in as many words as he could even if his meaning was already understood. It looked like Matt was about to fall asleep.
Relativisticism 2 years ago
George is one of the best callers.. come on. Why don't you actually listen to what he's saying
averagehomosapien 2 years ago
anyone else thinks the caller sounds a lot like Denis Prager?
hef31 2 years ago
Dennis Prager? lolz ;)
GeorgeFromNewYork 2 years ago
Smart caller.
Incongruent 2 years ago
that caller was really informed.. he would be a toughy to convince... christians scare me with all of their judgements and prolife hoopla
piperboy350 2 years ago
Thanks for the kind words, folks. No, I am not ProfMTH or Anon-whoever.
-GeorgeFromNY
PS - FOR THE HORDE! ;)
BrainFromArous 2 years ago
Holy crap! Did God himself call the Atheist Experience?
That voice can de-convert you in a split second!
thevirtuozo 2 years ago 6
Totally, this guy is awesome. It's the antichriiiiist!
YetAnotherHeretic 2 years ago
Max Planck is the Physicist who originated quantum physics, 1858-1947
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. Max Planck
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. " Max Planck
Dwrancho144 2 years ago
"in thee atheists eyes the word 'purpose' is just a figment of thee imagination. "
Oh I don't think so, one can & still does have purpose outside of believing in or not believing some supernatural entity. One is not, nor predicated on the other.
"atheist also claim that love is just a figment of the imagination"
i'm not sure what gives you this indication, but 'love' is just a word whcih we associate a strong bond for something which we trully admire/like/are fond of.
agentorange20 2 years ago 2
Appeal to authority.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dwrancho144 2 years ago
You couldn't be more wrong. Even without the fossil record DNA evidence supports evolution.
BTW: Even if you prove evolution is wrong. That doesn't prove god. Dumbass.
thirdLeg 2 years ago 6
"what im saying is that you guys claim there is no ULTIMATE PURPOSE TO LIFE."
Sure there is, it's WHATEVER one makes of it. if for you, it's blogging on some YT vid, & you find quantifiable meaning in that, then that's your purpose. Simply having a purpose doesn't mean therefore that this purose must extend beyond that which we can't prove w/ evidence.
agentorange20 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
well that is a personal purpose, but not an ULTIMATE PURPOSE
when i say ULTIMATE PURPOSE im talking about a set purpose an unchangeable purpose that just exist necessarily aside from what one might THINK his purpose is, if atheism is true then there is no ULTIMATE PURPOSE to life.
because an ULTIMATE PURPOSE relies on ther being a God to set it in place like it was a law of physics and couldn't be changed. So in thee atheists eyes the word 'purpose' is just a figment of thee imagination.
Dwrancho144 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
An ULTIMATE PURPOSE TO LIFE then that proves God exist because it would have been God who put the ULTIMATE PURPOSE in place.
so the purpose of life isn't "what you make of it"
because if someone decides "hay, my purpose in life is to kill" that doesn't mean thats the purpose of life, just because that guy thought i was.
Just because you think gravity is blue doesn't make it blue. Or if you think the speed of light is 50 mph
that doesn't make it 50. An ULTIMATE PURPOSE implies a set law.
Dwrancho144 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
atheist also claim that love is just a figment of thee imagination and that TRUE LOVE really does not exist in the real world, but only in the human mind by some random evolutionary stupidity.
the bible says "God IS Love"
so if love truly does exist necessarily, then God truly exist.
Dwrancho144 2 years ago
You are claiming that something which exists is not the thing which is defined by the word by which it is defined.
You are also making a subjective value judgment and claiming it as objective fact.
And even accepting these insane premises, God does nothing to solve this, as "true love" would be the opinion and subjective value judgment of god and nothing more.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
purpose is a man made concept. my dog doesn't have a desperate compulsion to impose supernatural transcendent purpose on it's life, neither do ants or whales.
what you're saying is nonsense. gravity isn't an object. it's not visible, therefore it doesn't have the potential to emit light within the visible spectrum. the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.
"Just because you think gravity is blue doesn't make it blue"
just because you think god is there, that doesn't make him there.
xSWITCHBLADEx3 2 years ago 7
But Darwin
himself admitted that fossil records
failed to support his tree of life
image.
Do i smell... quote mining, I thinks so!
stefansv 2 years ago
Yeah, Darwin did admit that. HOWEVER, 150 years later, we have more fossils than Darwin could have ever dreamed. The fossil record of today overwhelmingly supports evolutionary biology.
Darwin was incorrect on many things, but he was only the pioneer in what became modern evolutionary biology. Appealing to the flaws in Darwin's thinking to discredit evolution is the same as appealing to the flaws in Democritus' proposal of the Atom to discredit particle physics.
ReasonDefender 2 years ago 2
But Darwin
himself admitted that fossil records
failed to support his tree of life
image
But it DOES support that! All the evidence we have about living things supports the "tree of life"
whovian1971 2 years ago
Yeah, and actually to qualify. Darwin said that the fossil record didn't support his statements AT THE TIME of his writing in 1859. So his statement, as you point out, not only flies in the face of the facts, it's a quote mine of the lowest order.
AHPMB 2 years ago
What i don't get is.....If the universe came from "nothing" then when was it that this so called "nothing" decided "hay, i should gather up enough physical laws and mathematical equations to produce conscious experiencing life forms".???
and if this question doesn't profoundly shock you then you have not even began to understand what it implies.
So intill naturalism can explain the origin of conscious experience, we MUST assume a Creator intill proven otherwise....if that were possible.
Dwrancho144 2 years ago
You're asking 2 different questions. Evolution explains how life became complex.
If you're second question is, what was before the big bang. Then the answer is No one knows. But realize "I dont know" does not prove a supreme being.
thirdLeg 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
NO! evolution "attempts" to explain how life became complex, but how do you know that its not just by random chance that so many fossils look alike???
its just a a magic trick that looks like the bunny levitated off the ground but you know the magic trick was fake.
you guys claim the universe has no purpose and that life is simply doomed to the abyss.
thats what i call brainwashed
and you wont care one bit how much evidence you find that God exist.......YOU WILL REJECT HIM NO MATTER WHAT!!!!
Dwrancho144 2 years ago
'you guys claim the universe has no purpose '
o not so, life's purpose is what you make of it, regardless of ones theological perspective. but if for you if self delusion in an imaged after life bring purpose to your actual life now, then hey, what ever floats your boat pal.
agentorange20 2 years ago
so what your saying is that "there is no REAL purpose to life, its just a figment of our imagination"
what im saying is that you guys claim there is no ULTIMATE PURPOSE TO LIFE.
Dwrancho144 2 years ago
No, there is no "ultimate purpose to life". But I am not sure why you think there has to be either..
bar9001 2 years ago