They had hitchens stoned!! How else could he stand to hear so much BS without either getting out or hitchslaping his ass and calling things by their name in immediately
@ibzzibrahim hitchens knows more about religion than you may think, and he often quotes the muslim faith. He simply doesn't state anything about Mohammad's birth, all he says is what is stated in the texts, ie. he is illiterate(cannot read/write) and is a merchant.
He simply says that the muslims believe in jesus, mary, moses etc.
I know this for a fact because i live with two muslims, and they constantly quote the qu'ran when talking about their beliefs.
Hithchens oscillates between immediate sense perception (eg. the experience of pain) and value judgments (eg. cruelty) treating them as if they are the same thing. This is how he solves the problem of giving value to anything - i.e. by conflating ethos and pathos into pathos.
Wilson is applying his counterfeit analogy to the other religions that contained a virgin birth and other similarities. The religions in question came BEFORE Christianity. If one agency created something before another agency creating something very similar, you couldn't say that the first agency was guilty of counterfeiting.
At 8min into this one; no one mentioned that the sun doesn't move relative to the earth (though they thought that the sun did at the time), but that we move relative to the sun. So the sun didn't stop, the earth's rotation would have had to slow down so that the sun was above the same spot of the earth for the duration of the battle.
this guy is probably the only honest and forthright apologist ive ever seen debate- and as you can see by this debate, anybody who believes the, so to speak, normal christianity, the christianity that the rest of christians believe, cannot defend themselves. they can either be dishonest, or be honest and proven immoral people of vacuous claims
1:16 hitchens almost has a heart attack from his stupidity haha...uhhhh he used humes teachings to the letter of the law...these people are in such denial about their own miracles over others its disgusting...Either you believe Mary cheated and made an excuse or you believe she was divinely impregnated and births a prophet....which also happened to happen tons of times before with other religious prophets. Which is more likely hume would ask? Glad hitch didnt let him get away with quoting hume
Wilson's criteria for believing the miracles he believes in is precisely the same criteria cited by believers of the miracles he rejects. But since he rejects those miracles, there must be some other reason he believes the ones he accepts. That reason is bald faith, inculcated in him in childhood, never honestly questioned, and excused by a tangled mess of rhetorical feints. Wilson is is an intellectual lightweight; my jaw has been agape every time he's spoken, at the inanity of his arguments
it is not claimed that buddha's birth was an immaculate conception.
His mother (Maya) simply claimed to have had a dream involving angels, flowers and the symbol of fertility. Dream readers in the kings court translated this to be a special event, as one would imagine a birth to royalty might surely be.
LOL @ ~1:00. Joseph knew the most reasonable reason for why his wife was pregnant... was because God did it? R O F L. I'm guessing it's highly more likely she was known to some other man... or even still more likely than a pregnant virgin would be pathanogenesis.
anyone dismissing logic and reason, replacing them with "faith " and "belief", are not only fools but willing fools~ this guy is one of them. his arguments are equally illogical and unreasonable.
Nice of you to leave out my first assertion that "I'm sure Mr. Wilson is an intelligent man." Guess when you're whole worldview is extracted via cherry-picking the anachronistic claims and statements of an ancient religious document, such a habit becomes second nature. Thanks and good bye.
Wilson uses the analogy of counterfeit bills as other religions with Christianity being the true bill. the virgin birth myth predates Christianity. how could a counterfeit bill come before the true bill?
@foxhanson The virgin birth myth predates christianity because it was prophesied to happen hundreds of years before hand by Jewish scripture found in the old testament. Sorry, that argument backfired on ya.
@thesamsin Virgin birth myths occured in many other religions, many centuries before any prophesies within the old testament. Christopher Hitchens mentions more than the old testament in his argument, which "foxhanson" is referring to. Sorry, that argument backfired on ya. Unless your final argument would resort in pulling the wool over your own eyes and accusing the "devil" of counterfeiting the virgin birth story in advance?
@waitwhatwasthat Care to provide any legitimate virgin birth stories that predate the old testament? Oh thats right, they don't exist. (Oh, and claiming that they are old doesn't mean they are, you need some kind of verification on the dates.)
@thesamsin You clearly have a deeply entrenched view that will not be dissuaded via a YouTube comments thread. I'm sure you have a carefully protected shell of knowledge that supports your beliefs, but I have to ask: Why would your god allow the devil to plant these "plagiarisms"? Doesn't it make so much more sense that your virgin birth myth is simply a version of other earlier cultures' oral traditions.
@waitwhatwasthat If there were evidence that these virgin birth stories predated the biblical prophesies that date back to the book of Genesis, then I would concede that argument. The simple truth is, that they don't. And, you failed to provide any. Send me a link to any kind of academic source that claims the validity of those virgin birth narratives. I have looked for them myself, I found nothing but empty claims with no academic basis.
@thesamsin Why does everyone need to give you proof, but you offer no proof yourself as to the authenticity of Jesus' virgin birth other than a handful of accounts written long after the fact. Those accounts themselves having been edited, re-edited, rewritten, convoluted, diluted, deluded and corrupted by centuries of theologians. You are ignoring the presence of other myths, but asserting that yours should be taken on faith. You are acting to confirm your own bias.
@waitwhatwasthat Ok first off, the virgin birth is only piece of the puzzle among several. In fact, Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies. MIT did a study using probability and found the odds of a man accidentally fulfilling only 8 of these in a lifetime to be 1 in 100 trillion. Fulfilling 48 of them would be 1 in 10 to the 157th power. And Jesus fulfilled 300 of them. The odds for that are astronomical.
Your point about retranslation is just wrong, we have almost all the original documents now.
@foxhanson You are making the presupposition that what he is associating with counterfeiting infers intention to imitate or pass itself off as the original one that said that, instead of the true one.
Logical fallacy.. Why am I not surprised?
Just because there was a religion where a male was the central figure before Jesus was born, does this mean that Christianity is false because the central figure is male?
@foxhanson Where is your proof that the virgin birth "myth" predates Christianity, and how do you know that your sources are true unless you have faith in them?
@TheObservationDeck Well, in the Zoroastrian religion, which had almost as many adherents as Judaism at the height of its subscription, Zoroaster's mother, Dughdova, was said to have conceived her son through a shaft of light. In other words, no male human intervention was neccessary, at least Zoroaster's case.
@TheObservationDeck "Perseus born of Danae, the Buddha was, Huitzilopochtli born of Catlicus, Attis born of Nana, the Genghis Khan, Krishna born of Devaka, Horus born of Isis, Mercury born of Maia, Romulus born of Rhea Sylvia"
@MRKetter81 Perseus born by being showered in the gold of Zeus, Buddha was born of the Great Being (who chose when, where, and to whom he would be born) whom impregnated his virgin mother Maya, Huitzilopochtli reborn each morning of Catlicus' womb (of the Aztec mythology), Attis born of an almond consumed by Nana, Horus born of a golden phallus, etc,. The main point is that the virgin birth of Jesus is not original, and doesn't arise in Christianity until the 5th century.
@MrAtheism33 None of those you've named have any relation to the time and era when Christianity was founded.
Attis was born in MANY ways, not simply the one you named; not to mention Jews who were very put off by every other religion wouldn't hesitate to reject such absurdities... Parallelism is scholarly the worst argument atheists have. The Gospels were written long before the 5th century and they all include the virgin birth.
@MRKetter81 The Israelites believed in many deities, not just Yaweh. They were influenced by the religions and mythology of SEVERAL cultures of the time, on this there is no debate. We have no records of "original" gospel writings, and the earliest editions we have are from the 3rd century. In fact, the disciples accredited with the written gospels (except for Paul) could not read or write, so that doesn't work.
@MRKetter81 "When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter." - Justin Martyr
@MRKetter81 Also, atheists don't need any arguments. The onus of proof is on believers. Unless nonbelief requires proof. In which case, please demonstrate how every religion (other than Christianity) in the history of mankind is false.
@MrAtheism33 "Also, atheists don't need any arguments." Then no worldview needs arguments and we can all assume what we like?
You can't simply avoid a transcendental while each and every statement you make is based on one. Your worldview is blind inasmuch as your perception lacks comprehension of the concepts you haven't witnessed. Simply put, you're talking out of your ass.
@MRKetter81 "Then no worldview needs arguments and we can all assume what we like"
That does not follow from my statement. If what you say is in fact true, then you cannot avoid ANY OTHER religious figure or transcendental deity (billions) other than your own. Which you clearly do, hypocrite.
I see, so you have to have a special comprehension of events purported in ancient myths of the Israelites that no nonbeliever (or person of another faith) has. There's a term for that: blind faith.
@MrAtheism33 "That does not follow from my statement. If what you say is in fact true, then you cannot avoid ANY OTHER religious figure or transcendental deity (billions) other than your own. Which you clearly do, hypocrite."
I never said the christian God was the transcendental I was talking about in my sentence. I said "a transcendental" (namely any). Your worldview has no intelligible reason for any commitment to any transcendental.
@MRKetter81 Regarding the "original Hebrew of the term," now I KNOW you are simply quoting Christian apologists. There are no written records to confirm a mistranslation. If so, show me where to find them. Also, even if an ancient myth claims that an elephant jumped over the moon, that doesn't mean it happened. Have you noticed how you went from disputing history/mythology to committing an ad hominem by insulting my ability to comprehend your faith? Rather telling that your arguments are weak
@MrAtheism33 I'd just like to respond to your statement regarding Atheists vs Theists on the onus of proof. It's a contradictory position for an Atheist to take. Theists reach a conclusion that God exists without "proof." Atheists reach the conclusion that God doesn't exist... without "proof."
@IfUrGivingIn Not quite sir. One cannot prove a negative, that is to say, you cannot prove the "nonexistence" of something. You can only prove if something DOES exist. Were I to claim that unicorns exist, you could not possibly prove me wrong. Thus, the onus of proof would be on me to show that unicorns do in fact exist. There is no more reason to believe that a god exists than an invisible, matter-less lobster.
@MrAtheism33 Saying God doesn't exist is a conclusion. All conclusions require proof, it's as simple as that.
You can prove a negative, if i start a rumour about you having a Lion under your bed, you can easily disprove that by checking under your bed.
I'll take another example; your unicorn example. A Unicorn hasn't been spotted on earth ever, so they don't exist here. However, they might exist somewhere in the cosmos (however unlikely that is).
@IfUrGivingIn Your lion analogy doesn't correspond to the issue of God. First, God is purported to not be a physical entity, thus you cannot 'see' it as you would a lion. Also, it is not purported to be under your bed, but beyond the cosmos. Just because a unicorn has not been spotted on earth, doesn't mean they don't exist on earth. I never said 'God doesn't exist' did I? An atheist doesn't BELIEVE a God exists. And there is no evidence, much less proof to suggest that one does.
@IfUrGivingIn If you are still unsatisfied, what If I told you that the unicorn I purport to exist is invisible and beyond comprehension or imagination? That it exists beyond the physical universe? How are you going to go about proving that my unicorn doesn't exist? You CANNOT. But do you see how absurd my assertion is? I've just demonstrated that I, myself, could not possibly know whether it exists and am thus contradicting myself.
@MrAtheism33 So the statement isn't falsifiable. Claiming the world revolved around the sun, thousands of years ago, would be a non-falsifiable claim. Claiming that bacteria caused illness, thousands of years ago, would be a non-falsifiable claim. Just because something at this moment may not be falsifiable, doesn't mean it's not relevant. If that was so, you'd be saying that, those people thousands of years ago that claimed the earth revolved around the sun, made absurd assumptions.
@MRKetter81 And if you had actually read what I wrote (that the virgin birth did not arise until the 5th century) I wouldn't have to explain to you that the earliest written accounts of the gospels that we have (3rd century) do not speak of a virgin birth. it was added later in the 5th century.
@MrAtheism33 And if you had actually read what I wrote (that the virgin birth did not arise until the 5th century) I wouldn't have to explain to you that the earliest written accounts of the gospels that we have (3rd century) do not speak of a virgin birth. it was added later in the 5th century.
Sure... if you try to the Hebrew word and try to twist it to mean something else, but in each and every example we have of the language at the time points to the former; It says virgin.
@foxhanson Early christian fathers speculated that the similarities of christianity with other, pagan religions were the devil's doing. Essentially they were "preemptive echoes" that would confuse and befuddle the faithful, in order to lead them astray... It's difficult to deal with the mental gymnastics of one whose beliefs are set in stone while the facts remain negotiable, isn't it?
@foxhanson To be sure, myths of resurrection and virgin births pre-dated the event of Jesus. In them all man's desire to transcend mortality is expressed. In Christ those desires are justified, "myth became fact" as former atheist CS Lewis would say. William Lane Craig does a good job of examining the resurrection if you want to look that up. The reason we don't debate whether the stories of the Greek gods were actual events is because no one reads them as historical. Not so with Jesus.
One thing has to be said about the lopsided tendency here to laud the Atheist argument: say it's "obvious" that there is no credible defense of religion all you like, but you keep seeking more, don't you? In short, if the answer to the question were as obvious as you say, why would you bother watching a debate or buying a book like 'God is Not Great'?
@hyeary1 Many of us aren't "as convinced as they pretend to be" I'm quite sure you're right . Some come from religious back grounds and know first hand the staggering extent to which one can hold false beliefs, and therefor seek to constantly reevaluate theirs. On the other hand, many enjoy these sorts of debates in the same sense that one might enjoy a sport. Even when we're sure our team is better and is most likely going to win, we still want to watch them wipe the floor with their opponent.
@hyeary1 The entire point is non conviction. Your'e comment can just as easily refer to your'e self. why do you bother to watch the debate?Perhaps you are not as convinced as you pretend to be?
When Wilson tried re-using his counterfeit bill analogy to refute Hitchen's claim that Christianity emulated other PAST religions (many of which involve a savior being born from a virgin), I really wanted to answer : "for others to try and counterfeit it, the genuine currency you're talking about would need to have existed before, not after..."
Right. There are a number of 'virgin birth' stories that come about and get applied to different sects AFTER Jesus.
Maybe just as important to mention - is that a number of Jews (going back well before Jesus) believed the Messiah would be born of a virgin (and then after is your copies or borrows).
Buddha has parents. Only long after is any 'virgin birth' murmurs. Muhammad. Moses normal parent scenario.
The 'counterfeit' argument makes sense for Mithras and some others.
I've always wondered how many christian men would assume, upon learning that their otherwise virgin girlfriends were pregnant, that they had been impregnated divinely by God, and that they were still, in fact, virgins, and not that they had been sleeping around on them.
I just find it so silly that something that, if someone you know were to tell you, would result in immediate, categorical disbelief, could be taken for sooth, from a thousands year old book.
to paraphrase:- "i don't want to give the impression that i just believe in miracles because i believe in them, i base my epistomology of miracles on the reserection of christ" d'oh!
@scudder91 yes, i was just thinking exactly the same as he said it. he cannot dsense miracles (because they dont happen) but believes in them because an old fairy tale book says there was one ! How easily is he led to ? Did he ever engage his brain when he was young and being brainwashed ?
@sids500 yes its' so strange, most of these people clearly aren't stupid, or uneducated, or dishonest, it's just that they've invested their entire sense of identity in one book whos premises are flawed, so they're always going to struggle to recognise their own contradictions and non sequiturs
How do you counterfeit something that hadn't yet happened? It would be like in 2010 saying someone else counterfeited VISA cards in 1585 because in 2010, people sometimes counterfeit VISA cards to get away with fraud. There are more problems with this argument than can be counted.
The chances of winning the lottery are slim, slim, slim! A winner or a loser to the lottery; which is more likely? A loser of course, but every so often someone does win the lottery. Hitchens is a very bright and deep thinker, unfortunately he rules out the possibility of things that are not likely to happen. Just because it is rare, does not mean it doesn't happen. He keeps using the phrase "which is more likely". This is a very closed minded statement.
@rraybin Or that all the fake alien abduction stories out there prove that there must be one race of real alien beings abducting people, and the fact there are all these fake stories proves it because they are all copying the one true race of Alien Abductors--even if some of the fake stories came before the True Abductions. I guess the copying was done retroactively?
what wilson says is basically on par with justin martyr's argument that satan fabricated all of the other similar qualities of earlier religions in accordance with the christian story.
amazing how Hitchens never lets Wilson get a word in in fear of being rebuttaled. I guess Christopher Hitchens figures that if he takes up all the time talking over Wilson and not let Wilson interrupt he will win the argument. Hitchens should have just brought earplugs and turned up his microphone.
I agree. It's clearly so. Here we have a really intelligent man, who believes in demons with horns and tails, and a heavenly theme park, monsters and the actual earth stopping without any side effects. This to me indicates just how religion can riddle one's logic and overall mind. It kind of hijacks one's intelligence. It amazes me and dissapoints me to no end.
Nah. He's real. What's scary to me is how you get astro physicists who believe in gins and demons whilst constructing things on the atomic level (islamists and some christians).
@Domzdream It's not so much the logic that's problematic, it's Wilson's premises and his rejection of evidential data, the cornerstone of epistemology, science and rational thinking.
hitchens keeps pointing to the so called bad things done by religion. Correction, its done in the name of religion. People can use anything to justify unjust acts. I can say that since evolution promotes a structural hierachy in living things, the scramble for africa in the 19th century and the holocaust were justified. Its not religion itself thats the problem its people who interpret it. It you murdered someone would it be the guns fault or the person pulling the trigger?
@jamaicanification no because religion gives them the motivation to do it.. therefore it is religion... jsut like religious people take credit for charities that were motivated by religion.. you cant have it both ways...
religion is the problem because it creates a society and belief in your mind you can justify any action.. if god tells you to do it you will do it.. your gun argument makes no sense..itd be the person who told you to kill someone...in whcih case yes theyd be subject to the law
@koabarra nope, it doesn't outdate the mahabharata, the babylonian and egyptian myths, etc. your holy book, as are all holy books, is a reguritation and amalgamation of myths already making their rounds around the ancient world. which is fine, nothing wrong with that, but you'll need to accept it because well, it's reality.
1. Why are other religions miracles wrong or innaccurate?
2. How would u go about proving that god is real to a non believer or someone of another religion, who is as devout to theirs? (who say had allah speak or apear to THEM)
3. Why would u not trust someones testimony if they couldnt read or write, as well as not know anything about germs, the world being round, or where we actually came from?
I thought i was getting somewhere with u but u keep insisting that personal ex. trumps all.
I wasnt saying "if carl sagan says..." Your not listening to what it means...
Ppl have willingly died for other religions as well, (buddists burning alive, for "personal" reasons)
What did i paraphrase?
And u have yet to come up with an answer as to why aliens dont exist, because ppl insist that they do because they personally think so. And why u are "flippantly" speculating over other religions.... :)
Like I also said before, Ive seen "with my own eyes" things that you assert as results or miracles in your religion. Why are others getting them as well?
And not always, are witnesses testimonies, held as "the truth" in the court systems.
Like Carl Sagan said: "extroardinary claims REQUIRE extrordinary evidence"
I had been a FIRM believer such as yourself for close to 20 years....i know how it is to start thinking diff about your religion.
you're right not all witness testimonies are "the truth" but they very well can be, point being that personal experience is one of the quint essential proofs whether you like it or not, especially on a personal level
i have no authority to speak for the claims of modern day miracles and will not speculate over it like you flippantly speculate over the first hand accounts of the Bible for which people willingly died
"People see aliens and would you be skeptical of them....why? They KNOW what they saw but why would u still not believe them?
I'm again giving u the benefit of the doubt when i say that miracles are true.... what I am trying to get to u is why are the other "true" miracles wrong and YOURS right"
Your doing exactly what i asked u NOT to do...and i can start to quote deuterononomy and levitcus versus but i wont.
But what I am trying to get to u, is that being a theist believer is more improbable, than a deist believer. I could be wrong being an atheist, but even I know that a deist god is MORE probable than the christian god. Your words will never be "irrelevant" to me or another open minded person. I enjoy a debate and will ALWAYS look for signs or evidence for any god. :)
Sigh, I used to be in the same horse blinded way of thinking.
Do u know what subjective means? It IS NOT proof to anyone else except YOURSELF. People see aliens and would you be skeptical of them....why? They KNOW what they saw but why would u still not believe them?
I'm again giving u the benefit of the doubt when i say that miracles are true.... what I am trying to get to u is why are the other "true" miracles wrong and YOURS right, besides u just saying. "Because I believe"
Ive seen ppl fall flat on their face, pass out, tremble uncontrollably, and have seen ppl in wheelchairs stand up (for a moment) and it is exacly what happens in other religions as well.
The mind is not easily explained I agree, but it is not as much a chaotic organ as u think. We are a bit more animalistic than u think. lol, well considering we are just 1.6% diff from bonobos/chimps. But anyway lmk what your thoughts are on the religion subject. :)
personal experience isn't evidence? are you a universal skeptic?
as far as your religion comment, what difference does it make what "he said/she said"
i think the truth is universal, so what i or you or they say is irrelevant with respect to the validity of God
and as far as miracles, i'm sure some weak minded individuals or even congregations are subject to projection but that doesn't disprove all miraculous accounts
you asked for evidence and i gave you some evidence i consider valid
thats NOT evidence actually, its subjective. Again I used to be christian, and I know alot of the arguments for it, and being a deist is much more probable than being a theist. And sadly, there isnt much evidence for jesus outside of the bible. Do u have an answer for the other religions? Why mohamad and Isis and budda are wrong or inaccurate? They are saying the same thing about YOUR religion.
It just sucks that religion is faith based and atheism is based on evidence.
I would believe ANYTHING were true provided evidence. I had always wanted to find out if and how god worked, but the more and more u investigate, the more u realize that religion is man made.
@TheWinepusher I think you can find hell of a lot arguments against his existence as generally conceived in this debate if you listen carefully. But obviously it is impossible to completely prove God doesn't exist since you can just keep changing the conception of him to evade new evidences. Atheism is based on evidence about reality, we don't have to provide evidence on unreal events.
@2CSST2 First of all, if you're going to make the claim that God doesn't exist then you have the burden to prove it. So yes, you absolutly do have to provide evidence. Secondly, as with every debate with christopher hitche,s he offers no definitive proof aganist God's existence. He just talks about North Korea, Radical Religion and Christian Crimes. Religion may be bad, Christians may have done bad things, but that has nothing to do with the issue of whether God exists or not
@TheWinepusher Wrong, you are making a claim you have to prove. It is completely absurd as a way of proceeding to prove the non-existence of things, rather then proving their existence. Otherwise we can go anywhere from there: Planet sized strawberries exist, you'd have to look the whole universe to prove they don't. Star wars people also do, as well as an invisible population of men who are among us presently. Those things and God are equally relevant right now.
@TheWinepusher he shows that the religions are bullshit and like dawkins, shows that even in their moderate state they allow mutations into the radicals and no matter which form religion takes it disrupts true learning. religion even in many of its most tolerate of forms still teach unverified and poorly developed hypothesis to others. the very essence of abrahamic religions at least, is to not question or ever tolerate questioning about their god.
@2CSST2 i wish atheism was called realism. first off atheism gives far too much credibility to religion. 2nd religious people tend to think of it as another form of religion.
Surely the burden of proof is on you. It's like saying "please provide evidence against 'Big Foot', the 'Yeti', the 'Loch Ness Monster', 'Apollo', 'Zeus' or 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster'."
"of course atheists think there is nothing outside the universe"
Unfortunately your wrong... rofl
Atheist=someone who does not believe in a supreme being or god.
It says NOTHING about what we DO believe in.
I used to be a hardcore christian, until I realized that being a theist is a horribly improbable stance to be in.
And why would the christian god be offering his help with other religions? (Ones that have nothing in common or contradicting ideas.) How do u know that lucifer is real?
I think wilson is mentally retarded. With respect to him though he is educated. He doesnt get the point that I like to make, as well as hitchens, that even if 90% of all "miracles" in all religions are fake, why are the 10% that ARE real, are yours!!, and NOT the other religions. I have yet to get a good retort or answer for this...
if there is only one God and only He is capable of miracles, then that would be a good explanation to your question making the other religions "counterfeit"
i personally believe the Bible when it describes other celestial beings (namely Lucifer and the 1/3 of the angels cast out of heaven with him), the next question is what powers can they possess and what "miracles" are they capable of?
of course atheists think there is nothing outside the universe, so this is academic discussion to you
I'm nowhere near as smart or educated as Hitchens, but even I could have beat the shit out of Wilson's arguments. This debate is a Rhodes Scholar vs. a mongoloid. Wilson would have gotten more points if he had just said he believed his points on faith, without any evidence, than try to debate the palpably untrue using reason and erudition. The more you look at religion, the more you realize it's a sham, designed to make the ignorant and unenlightened feel better.
Hmm....zoroastrianism, egyptian gods, etc all predate christianity...so wilson believes that "satan" counterfeited christianity before it even existed or what? How ridiculous! Wilson gives no good evidence for believing the miracles of christianity over any other religion.
I'm sure Wilson is otherwise a very intelligent man, but when it comes to defending his religious beliefs he sounds like a 5 year old child explaining why he knows unicorns are real. He has no basis for his beliefs other than his desire to wish them to be true.
@RPM11111 - Even if there were actual eyewitness documentation of Jesus' resurrection and ascention, such testimony would, at bottom, be questionable. But we don't even have this. None the the New Testament writers, including Paul, witnessed anything Jesus said or did - let alone any miracles. Even more importantly, they composed their accounts many decades after the alleged events took place. So, at best, what we have is not eyewitness testimony; only hearsay anecdotes of extraordinary events.
@RPM11111 - It appears to be overwhelmingly agreed by scholars that the book of Matthew is dated to have been written 70-100 C.E., 1 Peter 75-110 C.E., and the Gospel of John 90-100 C.E. Although these estimates may, or may not, be accurate, the problem with your line of reasoning is that you seem to want to use the testimony of the texts themselves as proof of their own testimony. That is perfectly circular and proves nothing other than that the texts says what it says...You don't see that?
No Harry, you said: "None the the New Testament writers, including Paul, witnessed anything Jesus said or did - let alone any miracles." That was what your reasoning concluded. I think it has room for improvement.
My line of reasoning is the line of reasoning that "most scholars" hold to. A significant number of ancient texts relied on for historical narrative are copies of originals, but some other agenda is driving you to doubt specifically those which support the Bible.
@RPM11111 - "My line of reasoning is the line of reasoning that 'most scholars' hold to."
Please elaborate on what scholars you are refering to. I'm aware of some of the disputes among scholars regarding the original dating of several New Testament books, but I am not aware of any reputable scholar that dates any of the books as being contemporaneous with Jesus - i.e. scholars agree that none the *actual* authors were eyewitnesses.
Stop trying to make strawmen. Nobody claimed they were written in Jesus' time.
Let's establish some clarity. Your original claim was that none of the Gospels were written by anybody who was with Jesus. I am saying it is widely accepted that Matthew, John and Peter (who walked with Jesus) wrote their respective Gospels and other NT books. They are the men who penned the work of which we now have copies of the originals - as is the norm with many accepted historical documents.
@RPM11111 - Would you say that the Qu'ran is a historical account? The process of winnowing fact from fiction tells us why we should doubt that - it's critical scrutiny. And scholars who've analyzed the NT not only agree that the earliest original work was written probably 40 years after Jesus, but that the works themselves bear pseudonyms - we aren't sure who the authors are. Yet you want to base your entire outlook on life on the dubious records of men who's very identity is in question? Why?
@RPM11111 - "They are the men who penned the work of which we now have copies of the originals..."
While you are convincing yourself of being "rational," you are merely making a huge leap of faith, especially regarding claims of miracles . Indeed we have copies of the original texts that testify to Joseph Smith being visited by the angel Moroni; as well as text verifying Muhammed rode a pegasus to heaven. But testimony of such miracles does not add to their credibility. You realize that?
You seem to be changing the subject. The Bible is verified by history, archaeology, geography, other historical witings. Historical events like Sodom and Gommorah can be substantiated. Prophecies about Israel, Jerusalem and the Jews have come to pass. Such things add credibility to the Bible narrative - miracles and all. Joseph Smith and the LDS have none of these things and the original writing of the BoM was written in "reformed egyptian" - a language that never existed.
@RPM11111 - The subject we're on is how to determine the reliability and accuracy of historical documentation. If the Biblical story of Sodom and Gommorah was proven to be entirely accurate, which it's not, it would not follow that therefore every claim in the many books of the Bible must be true as well. If you can convince yourself otherwise, and if you can convince yourself the myriad of miracles in the Bible are supported by evidence, I don't know what else to say to you but "wow."
Hmmm! I think the evidence for Sodom and Gommorah is overwhelming - you have to have an "agenda" to deny it. Tell me how I can produce evidence of miracles in the Bible? And tell me how my inability to do so means they didn't happen?
Can you give me the evidence for your belief in things like the universe exploding from nothing, spontaneous generation, speciation. If you can convince yourself that these are supported by evidence, I don't know what else to say to you but "wow."
@RPM11111 - The only "agenda" I may have is *conistency*; 1st, human testimony is never sufficient to establish a miracle - if it were, you would be forced to believe a slew of incredible, and contradictory events and claims. Because of this, there is no adequate evidence of miracles in *any* so-called witness of men. 2nd, although the inability to prove something doesn't mean it did not occur, it is, however, the most common characteristic of something that did not take place.
@RPM11111 - "Can you give me the evidence for your belief in things like the universe exploding from nothing..."
I already stated that I don't believe the universe came from nothing, and that your apparent position of: either the Bible is true, or the universe came out of nothing, is a textbook example of an either-or fallacy.
And I feel it is imprudent to form beliefs where knowledge is lacking - thus, I can comfortably admit to not have, or be unable of having, knowledge of something.
@RPM11111 - Pardon me if I find your method of discovering "truth" to be at least a tad silly, if not grossly inconsistent. I can only assume that if a doctor told you that you would live to be 1500 years old, you would at least doubt the claim. Yet, you think you are being reasonable in accepting the veracity of the most incredible and extraordinary claims based only on the testimony of human beings. So, what is your basis for believing such stories other than that they make you feel good?
Okay Harry. Bottom line is you like to think your faith is in things that are all entirely credible & proven, but the reality is they have as little evidence for acceptance as my Christian faith has - and they are just as "incredible and extraordinary". I'll leave you to continue in your little bubble of reality that shuts out any possibility that you are answerable to a Creator who holds you accountable for your sinful nature, yet as lovingly reached out to you with Salvation.
@RPM11111 - Astounding. You have no idea what I believe. I haven't told you anything - apparently you are forming more beliefs on another string of assumptions. You seem to have a knack for it. And equally important is the fact that you degrade your own faith by trying to equate my beliefs - which you are completely ignorant of - as being acquired in the same manner as your own. Again, I do no pretend to know what I do not - I am comfortable with doubt. This is what *thinking* demands. Get it?
This isn't the first time I've had such a response from one who spends much of his time on youtube mocking Christians. What do you believe then? You clearly must have drawn some conclusions with your superior methodology of sifting through the evidence with great thought and deduction. What has it amounted to - do tell? If you're going to say "I don't know" it makes sense, because you haven't provided any answers to my previous questions about the origin of life and all it's forms.
@RPM11111 - "Mocking Christians"? Please explain that one.
And do you really disagree that there are *superior* and *inferior* methods of forming beliefs - beliefs that portray reality in an accurate manner? If you do disagree, I understand why you have chosen a particular faith; and why you liken your faith to the perfectly reverse system of critical scutiny. If you do agree, you must understand that admitting one's own ignorance is a fundamental - and superior - step toward learning truth.
@harrycrumb "...but when it comes to defending his religious beliefs he sounds like a 5 year old child explaining why he knows unicorns are real." Mocking!
You're very selective about which points you will address. You have done little by way of answering straight questions, but much in trying to place yourself on some higher ground of intellect. I really don't wish to waste any more time dealing with a man who attacks the beliefs of others while dodging straight questions about his own. Bye.
@RPM11111 - P.S. I was under the impression that because of the sin of Adam, all human beings were borne in sin - both ineluctably and totally unavoidably. So the doctrine you choose to follow says that you, and I, are to be "held accountable" for something we could not avoid. Kind of obscures the definitions of guilt and accountability don't you think? Your religious view is chalk full of such non-sensical and contradictory ideologies.
"ineluctably-unavoidably" Don't these words have the same meaning? A typical response given by one who likes to mock the Bible, but hasn't taken the time to read it or look at the context of events. Where's that rigorous methodology, Harry? The meaning is we are born from fallen parents - who have sinned, but our guilt is in that we actively pursue sin in the face of the knowledge that it is wrong. You describe it in a nonsensical way to reinforce your bias. The old straw-man tactic.
See: Richard Dawkins Is Too Emotional and Dishonest about William Lane Craig
...and more of Dr Craig's work.
William Lane Craig may be more suited to fulfilling the rigorous criteria expected by someone with such a brilliant mind as yours. As you have so repeatedly expressed, Douglas Wilson and I are clearly not up to that challenge.
@RPM11111 - "However, you accept narratives of history that were written after the fact by non-eye-witnesses for most everything else - just not stuff about Jesus"
Incorrect. I try to base what I believe on a myriad of reliable sources of information. For this very reason I do not accept every last word written in the Koran as divine revelation simply because the author of the book says it was given to him by God, or a prophet of God. Anecdotes of miracles are not proven by human testimony.
Oh, you're so thorough. I bet you everything you accept and adhere to has all been verified by meticulous scientific scrutiny.
If we're all just the product of matter interacting over time, why do you even care to join in these debates with pathetic comments designed to do nothing but belittle the Christians adherent? I think there's a bit more to all this than you and your friends care to admit.
I hope you find the evidence you're looking for before it's too late.
@RPM - Despite your rush to judgmdnt, many of the dearest people to me are sincere Christians. But sincerity is not a proof. Nor does it make certain claims more likely to be true. And my beliefs are not entirely based merely on what I read or what I am told, they are formed out of a process (which *is* thorough) that considers many factors - including probability, and the source's setting, motives, and reliability - which apparently your religion, like any other, will not allow of you.
@RPM11111 - "If we're all just the product of matter interacting over time, why do you even care to join in these debates..?"
If indeed, we happen to "just" be the product of matter, that does not mean truth is an illusion or that it's not important. You seem to have rushed to the absurd conclusion that if the Universe has some abstruse or inconceivable purpose, or a purpose that doesn't agree with your religious assumptions, then somehow nothing would matter. Nothing could be more untrue.
They had hitchens stoned!! How else could he stand to hear so much BS without either getting out or hitchslaping his ass and calling things by their name in immediately
jlc012 1 day ago
Muslims do not believe Mohammad was born miraculously. Thus, either Mr. Hitchens is not aware or he does not regard Islam to be a religion.
ibzzibrahim 1 month ago
@ibzzibrahim hitchens knows more about religion than you may think, and he often quotes the muslim faith. He simply doesn't state anything about Mohammad's birth, all he says is what is stated in the texts, ie. he is illiterate(cannot read/write) and is a merchant.
He simply says that the muslims believe in jesus, mary, moses etc.
I know this for a fact because i live with two muslims, and they constantly quote the qu'ran when talking about their beliefs.
I dont see where you come from.
scratchbang 1 week ago
I wish they would debate more narrow subjects than "does god exist / is the bible true". it seems it never goes anywhere really.
frilansspion 1 month ago
Hithchens oscillates between immediate sense perception (eg. the experience of pain) and value judgments (eg. cruelty) treating them as if they are the same thing. This is how he solves the problem of giving value to anything - i.e. by conflating ethos and pathos into pathos.
Matthysable 1 month ago
Wilson is applying his counterfeit analogy to the other religions that contained a virgin birth and other similarities. The religions in question came BEFORE Christianity. If one agency created something before another agency creating something very similar, you couldn't say that the first agency was guilty of counterfeiting.
kjohnsen045 1 month ago
The Argument of Parthenogenesis doesn't Work, Because All Offspring Must Be Female.
mdgreg 4 months ago in playlist mdgreg's Favorited Videos
At 8min into this one; no one mentioned that the sun doesn't move relative to the earth (though they thought that the sun did at the time), but that we move relative to the sun. So the sun didn't stop, the earth's rotation would have had to slow down so that the sun was above the same spot of the earth for the duration of the battle.
hikermanwa 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
this guy is probably the only honest and forthright apologist ive ever seen debate- and as you can see by this debate, anybody who believes the, so to speak, normal christianity, the christianity that the rest of christians believe, cannot defend themselves. they can either be dishonest, or be honest and proven immoral people of vacuous claims
zech48 8 months ago 2
1:16 hitchens almost has a heart attack from his stupidity haha...uhhhh he used humes teachings to the letter of the law...these people are in such denial about their own miracles over others its disgusting...Either you believe Mary cheated and made an excuse or you believe she was divinely impregnated and births a prophet....which also happened to happen tons of times before with other religious prophets. Which is more likely hume would ask? Glad hitch didnt let him get away with quoting hume
GBeesing 9 months ago
Wilson's criteria for believing the miracles he believes in is precisely the same criteria cited by believers of the miracles he rejects. But since he rejects those miracles, there must be some other reason he believes the ones he accepts. That reason is bald faith, inculcated in him in childhood, never honestly questioned, and excused by a tangled mess of rhetorical feints. Wilson is is an intellectual lightweight; my jaw has been agape every time he's spoken, at the inanity of his arguments
Apollinian 9 months ago 9
Hitchens is tooooo good at this.
Kristophirst 10 months ago
If you have a genuine article of worth, you will indeed find counterfeits.
Also, if you have a great scam, you will indeed find copycats.
+1 for Hitchens.
03161987 10 months ago
it is not claimed that buddha's birth was an immaculate conception.
His mother (Maya) simply claimed to have had a dream involving angels, flowers and the symbol of fertility. Dream readers in the kings court translated this to be a special event, as one would imagine a birth to royalty might surely be.
waysworth 10 months ago
An intelligent adult arguing with a ...........?
playingdablues 10 months ago
*Insert sarcastic atheist comment here*
jet375 10 months ago
LOL @ ~1:00. Joseph knew the most reasonable reason for why his wife was pregnant... was because God did it? R O F L. I'm guessing it's highly more likely she was known to some other man... or even still more likely than a pregnant virgin would be pathanogenesis.
adknerr 10 months ago
"All Joseph knew was who hadn't made her pregnant."
hobokombat 11 months ago 3
@hobokombat If you were a whore, THIS is the man you should marry!
thelordmemnoch 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Proof You Were Never Born A Sinner!
MrUrimthummim 1 year ago
anyone dismissing logic and reason, replacing them with "faith " and "belief", are not only fools but willing fools~ this guy is one of them. his arguments are equally illogical and unreasonable.
DNRvideos 1 year ago 23
Nice of you to leave out my first assertion that "I'm sure Mr. Wilson is an intelligent man." Guess when you're whole worldview is extracted via cherry-picking the anachronistic claims and statements of an ancient religious document, such a habit becomes second nature. Thanks and good bye.
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
Mr.Wilson can put his hat on now...he has lost the debate....lmao
chucka59 1 year ago
Wilson uses the analogy of counterfeit bills as other religions with Christianity being the true bill. the virgin birth myth predates Christianity. how could a counterfeit bill come before the true bill?
foxhanson 1 year ago 50
@foxhanson The virgin birth myth predates christianity because it was prophesied to happen hundreds of years before hand by Jewish scripture found in the old testament. Sorry, that argument backfired on ya.
thesamsin 1 year ago
@thesamsin what about Hinduism?
Nauarattaa 11 months ago
@Nauarattaa What about it?
thesamsin 11 months ago
@thesamsin Virgin birth myths occured in many other religions, many centuries before any prophesies within the old testament. Christopher Hitchens mentions more than the old testament in his argument, which "foxhanson" is referring to. Sorry, that argument backfired on ya. Unless your final argument would resort in pulling the wool over your own eyes and accusing the "devil" of counterfeiting the virgin birth story in advance?
waitwhatwasthat 11 months ago
@waitwhatwasthat Care to provide any legitimate virgin birth stories that predate the old testament? Oh thats right, they don't exist. (Oh, and claiming that they are old doesn't mean they are, you need some kind of verification on the dates.)
thesamsin 11 months ago
@thesamsin You clearly have a deeply entrenched view that will not be dissuaded via a YouTube comments thread. I'm sure you have a carefully protected shell of knowledge that supports your beliefs, but I have to ask: Why would your god allow the devil to plant these "plagiarisms"? Doesn't it make so much more sense that your virgin birth myth is simply a version of other earlier cultures' oral traditions.
waitwhatwasthat 10 months ago
@waitwhatwasthat If there were evidence that these virgin birth stories predated the biblical prophesies that date back to the book of Genesis, then I would concede that argument. The simple truth is, that they don't. And, you failed to provide any. Send me a link to any kind of academic source that claims the validity of those virgin birth narratives. I have looked for them myself, I found nothing but empty claims with no academic basis.
thesamsin 10 months ago
@thesamsin Why does everyone need to give you proof, but you offer no proof yourself as to the authenticity of Jesus' virgin birth other than a handful of accounts written long after the fact. Those accounts themselves having been edited, re-edited, rewritten, convoluted, diluted, deluded and corrupted by centuries of theologians. You are ignoring the presence of other myths, but asserting that yours should be taken on faith. You are acting to confirm your own bias.
waitwhatwasthat 10 months ago
@waitwhatwasthat Ok first off, the virgin birth is only piece of the puzzle among several. In fact, Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies. MIT did a study using probability and found the odds of a man accidentally fulfilling only 8 of these in a lifetime to be 1 in 100 trillion. Fulfilling 48 of them would be 1 in 10 to the 157th power. And Jesus fulfilled 300 of them. The odds for that are astronomical.
Your point about retranslation is just wrong, we have almost all the original documents now.
thesamsin 10 months ago
@foxhanson You are making the presupposition that what he is associating with counterfeiting infers intention to imitate or pass itself off as the original one that said that, instead of the true one.
Logical fallacy.. Why am I not surprised?
Just because there was a religion where a male was the central figure before Jesus was born, does this mean that Christianity is false because the central figure is male?
Absolute non-sequitur.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@foxhanson Where is your proof that the virgin birth "myth" predates Christianity, and how do you know that your sources are true unless you have faith in them?
happyhomemaker1995 10 months ago
@foxhanson
Which religion predating Christianity has a virgin birth?
TheObservationDeck 9 months ago
@TheObservationDeck Well, in the Zoroastrian religion, which had almost as many adherents as Judaism at the height of its subscription, Zoroaster's mother, Dughdova, was said to have conceived her son through a shaft of light. In other words, no male human intervention was neccessary, at least Zoroaster's case.
writersblock26 9 months ago
@TheObservationDeck "Perseus born of Danae, the Buddha was, Huitzilopochtli born of Catlicus, Attis born of Nana, the Genghis Khan, Krishna born of Devaka, Horus born of Isis, Mercury born of Maia, Romulus born of Rhea Sylvia"
MrAtheism33 8 months ago
@MrAtheism33 And do you have any idea HOW they were born? Look those myths up before draw such parallels.
MRKetter81 7 months ago
@MRKetter81 Perseus born by being showered in the gold of Zeus, Buddha was born of the Great Being (who chose when, where, and to whom he would be born) whom impregnated his virgin mother Maya, Huitzilopochtli reborn each morning of Catlicus' womb (of the Aztec mythology), Attis born of an almond consumed by Nana, Horus born of a golden phallus, etc,. The main point is that the virgin birth of Jesus is not original, and doesn't arise in Christianity until the 5th century.
MrAtheism33 7 months ago
@MrAtheism33 None of those you've named have any relation to the time and era when Christianity was founded.
Attis was born in MANY ways, not simply the one you named; not to mention Jews who were very put off by every other religion wouldn't hesitate to reject such absurdities... Parallelism is scholarly the worst argument atheists have. The Gospels were written long before the 5th century and they all include the virgin birth.
MRKetter81 7 months ago
@MRKetter81 The Israelites believed in many deities, not just Yaweh. They were influenced by the religions and mythology of SEVERAL cultures of the time, on this there is no debate. We have no records of "original" gospel writings, and the earliest editions we have are from the 3rd century. In fact, the disciples accredited with the written gospels (except for Paul) could not read or write, so that doesn't work.
MrAtheism33 7 months ago
@MRKetter81 "When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter." - Justin Martyr
YY4Me133 7 months ago
@MrAtheism33 /watch?v=TsVkeMZCkOg&feature=channel_video_title
MRKetter81 7 months ago
@MRKetter81 Also, atheists don't need any arguments. The onus of proof is on believers. Unless nonbelief requires proof. In which case, please demonstrate how every religion (other than Christianity) in the history of mankind is false.
MrAtheism33 7 months ago
@MrAtheism33 "Also, atheists don't need any arguments." Then no worldview needs arguments and we can all assume what we like?
You can't simply avoid a transcendental while each and every statement you make is based on one. Your worldview is blind inasmuch as your perception lacks comprehension of the concepts you haven't witnessed. Simply put, you're talking out of your ass.
MRKetter81 6 months ago
@MRKetter81 "Then no worldview needs arguments and we can all assume what we like"
That does not follow from my statement. If what you say is in fact true, then you cannot avoid ANY OTHER religious figure or transcendental deity (billions) other than your own. Which you clearly do, hypocrite.
I see, so you have to have a special comprehension of events purported in ancient myths of the Israelites that no nonbeliever (or person of another faith) has. There's a term for that: blind faith.
MrAtheism33 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAtheism33 "That does not follow from my statement. If what you say is in fact true, then you cannot avoid ANY OTHER religious figure or transcendental deity (billions) other than your own. Which you clearly do, hypocrite."
I never said the christian God was the transcendental I was talking about in my sentence. I said "a transcendental" (namely any). Your worldview has no intelligible reason for any commitment to any transcendental.
MRKetter81 6 months ago
@MrAtheism33 Stop beating up straw men.
MRKetter81 6 months ago
@MRKetter81 Well, I have known some pretty robust scarecrows in my time.
writersblock26 5 months ago
@MRKetter81 Regarding the "original Hebrew of the term," now I KNOW you are simply quoting Christian apologists. There are no written records to confirm a mistranslation. If so, show me where to find them. Also, even if an ancient myth claims that an elephant jumped over the moon, that doesn't mean it happened. Have you noticed how you went from disputing history/mythology to committing an ad hominem by insulting my ability to comprehend your faith? Rather telling that your arguments are weak
MrAtheism33 6 months ago
@MrAtheism33 I'd just like to respond to your statement regarding Atheists vs Theists on the onus of proof. It's a contradictory position for an Atheist to take. Theists reach a conclusion that God exists without "proof." Atheists reach the conclusion that God doesn't exist... without "proof."
IfUrGivingIn 5 months ago
@IfUrGivingIn Not quite sir. One cannot prove a negative, that is to say, you cannot prove the "nonexistence" of something. You can only prove if something DOES exist. Were I to claim that unicorns exist, you could not possibly prove me wrong. Thus, the onus of proof would be on me to show that unicorns do in fact exist. There is no more reason to believe that a god exists than an invisible, matter-less lobster.
MrAtheism33 5 months ago
@MrAtheism33 Saying God doesn't exist is a conclusion. All conclusions require proof, it's as simple as that.
You can prove a negative, if i start a rumour about you having a Lion under your bed, you can easily disprove that by checking under your bed.
I'll take another example; your unicorn example. A Unicorn hasn't been spotted on earth ever, so they don't exist here. However, they might exist somewhere in the cosmos (however unlikely that is).
IfUrGivingIn 5 months ago
@IfUrGivingIn Your lion analogy doesn't correspond to the issue of God. First, God is purported to not be a physical entity, thus you cannot 'see' it as you would a lion. Also, it is not purported to be under your bed, but beyond the cosmos. Just because a unicorn has not been spotted on earth, doesn't mean they don't exist on earth. I never said 'God doesn't exist' did I? An atheist doesn't BELIEVE a God exists. And there is no evidence, much less proof to suggest that one does.
MrAtheism33 5 months ago
@IfUrGivingIn If you are still unsatisfied, what If I told you that the unicorn I purport to exist is invisible and beyond comprehension or imagination? That it exists beyond the physical universe? How are you going to go about proving that my unicorn doesn't exist? You CANNOT. But do you see how absurd my assertion is? I've just demonstrated that I, myself, could not possibly know whether it exists and am thus contradicting myself.
MrAtheism33 5 months ago
@MrAtheism33 So the statement isn't falsifiable. Claiming the world revolved around the sun, thousands of years ago, would be a non-falsifiable claim. Claiming that bacteria caused illness, thousands of years ago, would be a non-falsifiable claim. Just because something at this moment may not be falsifiable, doesn't mean it's not relevant. If that was so, you'd be saying that, those people thousands of years ago that claimed the earth revolved around the sun, made absurd assumptions.
IfUrGivingIn 5 months ago
@MrAtheism33 /watch?v=00WOGeGcjYo
MRKetter81 7 months ago
@MRKetter81 And if you had actually read what I wrote (that the virgin birth did not arise until the 5th century) I wouldn't have to explain to you that the earliest written accounts of the gospels that we have (3rd century) do not speak of a virgin birth. it was added later in the 5th century.
MrAtheism33 7 months ago
@MrAtheism33 And if you had actually read what I wrote (that the virgin birth did not arise until the 5th century) I wouldn't have to explain to you that the earliest written accounts of the gospels that we have (3rd century) do not speak of a virgin birth. it was added later in the 5th century.
Sure... if you try to the Hebrew word and try to twist it to mean something else, but in each and every example we have of the language at the time points to the former; It says virgin.
MRKetter81 6 months ago
@foxhanson Early christian fathers speculated that the similarities of christianity with other, pagan religions were the devil's doing. Essentially they were "preemptive echoes" that would confuse and befuddle the faithful, in order to lead them astray... It's difficult to deal with the mental gymnastics of one whose beliefs are set in stone while the facts remain negotiable, isn't it?
dorsk188 9 months ago
@foxhanson I just love the idea of religion being the analogue of counterfeit!
HarrynJessie 9 months ago
@foxhanson To be sure, myths of resurrection and virgin births pre-dated the event of Jesus. In them all man's desire to transcend mortality is expressed. In Christ those desires are justified, "myth became fact" as former atheist CS Lewis would say. William Lane Craig does a good job of examining the resurrection if you want to look that up. The reason we don't debate whether the stories of the Greek gods were actual events is because no one reads them as historical. Not so with Jesus.
Uluwatusunrise 6 months ago
@foxhanson Yes. It's so obvious it hurts my brain to try and understand how a grown man capable of tying his own shoes could argue so ridiculously.
Jornev 4 months ago
One thing has to be said about the lopsided tendency here to laud the Atheist argument: say it's "obvious" that there is no credible defense of religion all you like, but you keep seeking more, don't you? In short, if the answer to the question were as obvious as you say, why would you bother watching a debate or buying a book like 'God is Not Great'?
You're not as convinced as you pretend to be.
hyeary1 1 year ago
@hyeary1 Many of us aren't "as convinced as they pretend to be" I'm quite sure you're right . Some come from religious back grounds and know first hand the staggering extent to which one can hold false beliefs, and therefor seek to constantly reevaluate theirs. On the other hand, many enjoy these sorts of debates in the same sense that one might enjoy a sport. Even when we're sure our team is better and is most likely going to win, we still want to watch them wipe the floor with their opponent.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@hyeary1 The entire point is non conviction. Your'e comment can just as easily refer to your'e self. why do you bother to watch the debate?Perhaps you are not as convinced as you pretend to be?
flight1100 10 months ago
When Wilson tried re-using his counterfeit bill analogy to refute Hitchen's claim that Christianity emulated other PAST religions (many of which involve a savior being born from a virgin), I really wanted to answer : "for others to try and counterfeit it, the genuine currency you're talking about would need to have existed before, not after..."
finalfansix 1 year ago
@finalfansix
Right. There are a number of 'virgin birth' stories that come about and get applied to different sects AFTER Jesus.
Maybe just as important to mention - is that a number of Jews (going back well before Jesus) believed the Messiah would be born of a virgin (and then after is your copies or borrows).
Buddha has parents. Only long after is any 'virgin birth' murmurs. Muhammad. Moses normal parent scenario.
The 'counterfeit' argument makes sense for Mithras and some others.
ElProximo 1 year ago
I Believe Mohammad is the one true profit because I believe Mohammad is the one true profit.
nak807 1 year ago
@nak807 Right on, yeeehaaawwww!
Kan2209 1 year ago
I've always wondered how many christian men would assume, upon learning that their otherwise virgin girlfriends were pregnant, that they had been impregnated divinely by God, and that they were still, in fact, virgins, and not that they had been sleeping around on them.
I just find it so silly that something that, if someone you know were to tell you, would result in immediate, categorical disbelief, could be taken for sooth, from a thousands year old book.
ProkofievRules 1 year ago
If Hitch had followed with a "Boo-Ya!" at 4:12, it may rank as the most thunderous smack-down in history
vitalogy10jr 1 year ago
I think it was a wise George Bush president point this out: "My hypothetical comes from a hypothesis".
BLUEEYESSEVEN 1 year ago
to paraphrase:- "i don't want to give the impression that i just believe in miracles because i believe in them, i base my epistomology of miracles on the reserection of christ" d'oh!
scudder91 1 year ago
@scudder91 yes, i was just thinking exactly the same as he said it. he cannot dsense miracles (because they dont happen) but believes in them because an old fairy tale book says there was one ! How easily is he led to ? Did he ever engage his brain when he was young and being brainwashed ?
sids500 1 year ago
@sids500 yes its' so strange, most of these people clearly aren't stupid, or uneducated, or dishonest, it's just that they've invested their entire sense of identity in one book whos premises are flawed, so they're always going to struggle to recognise their own contradictions and non sequiturs
scudder91 1 year ago
@sids500 "by the way, available from fine bookstores everywhere."
scudder91 1 year ago
How do you counterfeit something that hadn't yet happened? It would be like in 2010 saying someone else counterfeited VISA cards in 1585 because in 2010, people sometimes counterfeit VISA cards to get away with fraud. There are more problems with this argument than can be counted.
greyeyed123 1 year ago
The chances of winning the lottery are slim, slim, slim! A winner or a loser to the lottery; which is more likely? A loser of course, but every so often someone does win the lottery. Hitchens is a very bright and deep thinker, unfortunately he rules out the possibility of things that are not likely to happen. Just because it is rare, does not mean it doesn't happen. He keeps using the phrase "which is more likely". This is a very closed minded statement.
lycanthropy2010 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 His point is, who are you to say which miracles are the actual ones and which are not? Either they are ALL true, or not.
Why is your personal miracle belief (whatever it is) somehow more worthy of your faith than any other?
windfall 1 year ago
@lycanthropy2010 "He keeps using the phrase "which is more likely"." he's not talking about probabilities, you're missing the point.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
So by Wilson's logic, all the bogus panaceas sold by medical charlatans means there is a real panacea out there.
rraybin 1 year ago
@rraybin Or that all the fake alien abduction stories out there prove that there must be one race of real alien beings abducting people, and the fact there are all these fake stories proves it because they are all copying the one true race of Alien Abductors--even if some of the fake stories came before the True Abductions. I guess the copying was done retroactively?
greyeyed123 1 year ago
Yes, the scriptures are equivalent to shopping bags.
Nice one, idiot.
hairyreasoner 1 year ago
why so, much of the commentators in this debates are thinking people :)
earthangelrojanie 1 year ago
what wilson says is basically on par with justin martyr's argument that satan fabricated all of the other similar qualities of earlier religions in accordance with the christian story.
ScaryKid1015 1 year ago
amazing how Hitchens never lets Wilson get a word in in fear of being rebuttaled. I guess Christopher Hitchens figures that if he takes up all the time talking over Wilson and not let Wilson interrupt he will win the argument. Hitchens should have just brought earplugs and turned up his microphone.
BloodStainedLamb 1 year ago
religious people r mentally disordered. its not an insult. its my observation and opinion.
TheAtheistworld 1 year ago
@TheAtheistworld
I agree. It's clearly so. Here we have a really intelligent man, who believes in demons with horns and tails, and a heavenly theme park, monsters and the actual earth stopping without any side effects. This to me indicates just how religion can riddle one's logic and overall mind. It kind of hijacks one's intelligence. It amazes me and dissapoints me to no end.
Domzdream 1 year ago 16
@Domzdream i agree, but i think he is just an actor. w do u think?
TheAtheistworld 1 year ago
@TheAtheistworld
Nah. He's real. What's scary to me is how you get astro physicists who believe in gins and demons whilst constructing things on the atomic level (islamists and some christians).
Nah, he's definitely real.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream Wow, I feel as though my mind has been tapped......couldn't have put it better....
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago
@Domzdream It's not so much the logic that's problematic, it's Wilson's premises and his rejection of evidential data, the cornerstone of epistemology, science and rational thinking.
random007nadir 11 months ago
@Domzdream Love this comment! "Hijacks one's intelligence" fantastic!
cinemar 10 months ago
@cinemar
hehe. Thanks.
Domzdream 10 months ago
hitchens keeps pointing to the so called bad things done by religion. Correction, its done in the name of religion. People can use anything to justify unjust acts. I can say that since evolution promotes a structural hierachy in living things, the scramble for africa in the 19th century and the holocaust were justified. Its not religion itself thats the problem its people who interpret it. It you murdered someone would it be the guns fault or the person pulling the trigger?
jamaicanification 1 year ago
@jamaicanification no because religion gives them the motivation to do it.. therefore it is religion... jsut like religious people take credit for charities that were motivated by religion.. you cant have it both ways...
religion is the problem because it creates a society and belief in your mind you can justify any action.. if god tells you to do it you will do it.. your gun argument makes no sense..itd be the person who told you to kill someone...in whcih case yes theyd be subject to the law
dcderek24 1 year ago
@koabarra nope, it doesn't outdate the mahabharata, the babylonian and egyptian myths, etc. your holy book, as are all holy books, is a reguritation and amalgamation of myths already making their rounds around the ancient world. which is fine, nothing wrong with that, but you'll need to accept it because well, it's reality.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
I hope Wilson knows that virgin birth was a concept that had come many years before his buddy Jesus
69Thrasha69 1 year ago
Why isn't Wilson wearing his hat?
Thinking caps on, Wilson!
xSilverPhinx 1 year ago 2
I'm still shocked that human beings can be as dumb as Wilson is in this video.
MrSalamander7 1 year ago 3
the resurrection is a made up cure for a made up problem. god killed himself because someone ate an apple? Please...
setmedic 1 year ago
Oh and...
4. Would u be willing to test your "miracles" or prayers, to see if they have any probability of being accurate over others?
5. Do you know the def. of being a deist?
ImBetterthanReligion 2 years ago
Can u answer these few questions?
(Again i used to be a christian for 18 years)
1. Why are other religions miracles wrong or innaccurate?
2. How would u go about proving that god is real to a non believer or someone of another religion, who is as devout to theirs? (who say had allah speak or apear to THEM)
3. Why would u not trust someones testimony if they couldnt read or write, as well as not know anything about germs, the world being round, or where we actually came from?
Thank you :)
ImBetterthanReligion 2 years ago
I thought i was getting somewhere with u but u keep insisting that personal ex. trumps all.
I wasnt saying "if carl sagan says..." Your not listening to what it means...
Ppl have willingly died for other religions as well, (buddists burning alive, for "personal" reasons)
What did i paraphrase?
And u have yet to come up with an answer as to why aliens dont exist, because ppl insist that they do because they personally think so. And why u are "flippantly" speculating over other religions.... :)
ImBetterthanReligion 2 years ago
@ImBetterthanReligion i never said personal experience trumps all, i simply said it is proof and so did you
and yes people die for things all the time, but that only proves they believe in whatever it is
and if some people died over the claim of aliens and were wrong, that doesn't make every extraordinary claim wrong
if you want to discuss more, message me, i'd be happy to talk with you some more, have a good one
ineternitypast 2 years ago
Like I also said before, Ive seen "with my own eyes" things that you assert as results or miracles in your religion. Why are others getting them as well?
And not always, are witnesses testimonies, held as "the truth" in the court systems.
Like Carl Sagan said: "extroardinary claims REQUIRE extrordinary evidence"
I had been a FIRM believer such as yourself for close to 20 years....i know how it is to start thinking diff about your religion.
ImBetterthanReligion 2 years ago
well geez, if Carl Sagan said it....
you're right not all witness testimonies are "the truth" but they very well can be, point being that personal experience is one of the quint essential proofs whether you like it or not, especially on a personal level
i have no authority to speak for the claims of modern day miracles and will not speculate over it like you flippantly speculate over the first hand accounts of the Bible for which people willingly died
and you paraphrased scripture first :)
ineternitypast 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You still dont get what im getting at.
"People see aliens and would you be skeptical of them....why? They KNOW what they saw but why would u still not believe them?
I'm again giving u the benefit of the doubt when i say that miracles are true.... what I am trying to get to u is why are the other "true" miracles wrong and YOURS right"
Your doing exactly what i asked u NOT to do...and i can start to quote deuterononomy and levitcus versus but i wont.
ImBetterthanReligion 2 years ago
"It IS NOT proof to anyone else except YOURSELF." yeah, exactly
personal experience and testimony are still proof, especially in a little thing called the Court/Judicial System
i'm glad you corrected yourself
"I used to be in the same horse blinded way of thinking"
John 9:25
"I was blind but now I see!"
taking a page out of Hitchen's argumentation 101? highjack the Christian vehicle and ram it into a tree, or better yet, a Christian?. lol
ineternitypast 2 years ago
I'm not trying to get u to my point...
But what I am trying to get to u, is that being a theist believer is more improbable, than a deist believer. I could be wrong being an atheist, but even I know that a deist god is MORE probable than the christian god. Your words will never be "irrelevant" to me or another open minded person. I enjoy a debate and will ALWAYS look for signs or evidence for any god. :)
ImBetterthanReligion 2 years ago
Sigh, I used to be in the same horse blinded way of thinking.
Do u know what subjective means? It IS NOT proof to anyone else except YOURSELF. People see aliens and would you be skeptical of them....why? They KNOW what they saw but why would u still not believe them?
I'm again giving u the benefit of the doubt when i say that miracles are true.... what I am trying to get to u is why are the other "true" miracles wrong and YOURS right, besides u just saying. "Because I believe"
ImBetterthanReligion 2 years ago
Ive seen ppl fall flat on their face, pass out, tremble uncontrollably, and have seen ppl in wheelchairs stand up (for a moment) and it is exacly what happens in other religions as well.
The mind is not easily explained I agree, but it is not as much a chaotic organ as u think. We are a bit more animalistic than u think. lol, well considering we are just 1.6% diff from bonobos/chimps. But anyway lmk what your thoughts are on the religion subject. :)
ImBetterthanReligion 2 years ago
personal experience isn't evidence? are you a universal skeptic?
as far as your religion comment, what difference does it make what "he said/she said"
i think the truth is universal, so what i or you or they say is irrelevant with respect to the validity of God
and as far as miracles, i'm sure some weak minded individuals or even congregations are subject to projection but that doesn't disprove all miraculous accounts
you asked for evidence and i gave you some evidence i consider valid
ineternitypast 2 years ago
Would u be willing to test out your "healings" or "miracles" against other religions?
Prayer has exactly 50/50 chance of being accurate
(did/did not pray) look it up on the web.
Im not trying to convince u there is no god... but to get u to the deist stance. If u dont know what that is look it up or i can answer it. :)
And please dont quote scriptures or anything, Ive read the bible twice and u have to look from an atheists view for a moment.
ImBetterthanReligion 2 years ago
I wouldn't use personal experience as evidence...
thats NOT evidence actually, its subjective. Again I used to be christian, and I know alot of the arguments for it, and being a deist is much more probable than being a theist. And sadly, there isnt much evidence for jesus outside of the bible. Do u have an answer for the other religions? Why mohamad and Isis and budda are wrong or inaccurate? They are saying the same thing about YOUR religion.
ImBetterthanReligion 2 years ago
i personally take into account the historical evidence, personal accounts, events
i also take into account that man is not a robot based simply on logic, we have characteristics and freely make choices not easily explained
i also take evil acts and the human condition as evidence supporting certain claims of the Bible
i also take my personal experience as evidence (much as you do)
that's the "beauty" of the concept of God, it can be very personal, similar to a relationship between people.
ineternitypast 2 years ago
BESIDES faith of course.... :)
(its a retorical question of course)
It just sucks that religion is faith based and atheism is based on evidence.
I would believe ANYTHING were true provided evidence. I had always wanted to find out if and how god worked, but the more and more u investigate, the more u realize that religion is man made.
ImBetterthanReligion 2 years ago
HAHAHA, atheism is based on evidence. plz provide some evidences aganist God's existence then.
TheWinepusher 1 year ago
@TheWinepusher I think you can find hell of a lot arguments against his existence as generally conceived in this debate if you listen carefully. But obviously it is impossible to completely prove God doesn't exist since you can just keep changing the conception of him to evade new evidences. Atheism is based on evidence about reality, we don't have to provide evidence on unreal events.
2CSST2 1 year ago
@2CSST2 First of all, if you're going to make the claim that God doesn't exist then you have the burden to prove it. So yes, you absolutly do have to provide evidence. Secondly, as with every debate with christopher hitche,s he offers no definitive proof aganist God's existence. He just talks about North Korea, Radical Religion and Christian Crimes. Religion may be bad, Christians may have done bad things, but that has nothing to do with the issue of whether God exists or not
TheWinepusher 1 year ago
@TheWinepusher Wrong, you are making a claim you have to prove. It is completely absurd as a way of proceeding to prove the non-existence of things, rather then proving their existence. Otherwise we can go anywhere from there: Planet sized strawberries exist, you'd have to look the whole universe to prove they don't. Star wars people also do, as well as an invisible population of men who are among us presently. Those things and God are equally relevant right now.
2CSST2 1 year ago
@TheWinepusher he shows that the religions are bullshit and like dawkins, shows that even in their moderate state they allow mutations into the radicals and no matter which form religion takes it disrupts true learning. religion even in many of its most tolerate of forms still teach unverified and poorly developed hypothesis to others. the very essence of abrahamic religions at least, is to not question or ever tolerate questioning about their god.
mistereveready 1 year ago
@2CSST2 i wish atheism was called realism. first off atheism gives far too much credibility to religion. 2nd religious people tend to think of it as another form of religion.
mistereveready 1 year ago
Surely the burden of proof is on you. It's like saying "please provide evidence against 'Big Foot', the 'Yeti', the 'Loch Ness Monster', 'Apollo', 'Zeus' or 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster'."
5anthonys 1 year ago
@eternity
"of course atheists think there is nothing outside the universe"
Unfortunately your wrong... rofl
Atheist=someone who does not believe in a supreme being or god.
It says NOTHING about what we DO believe in.
I used to be a hardcore christian, until I realized that being a theist is a horribly improbable stance to be in.
And why would the christian god be offering his help with other religions? (Ones that have nothing in common or contradicting ideas.) How do u know that lucifer is real?
ImBetterthanReligion 2 years ago
I think wilson is mentally retarded. With respect to him though he is educated. He doesnt get the point that I like to make, as well as hitchens, that even if 90% of all "miracles" in all religions are fake, why are the 10% that ARE real, are yours!!, and NOT the other religions. I have yet to get a good retort or answer for this...
ImBetterthanReligion 2 years ago
if there is only one God and only He is capable of miracles, then that would be a good explanation to your question making the other religions "counterfeit"
i personally believe the Bible when it describes other celestial beings (namely Lucifer and the 1/3 of the angels cast out of heaven with him), the next question is what powers can they possess and what "miracles" are they capable of?
of course atheists think there is nothing outside the universe, so this is academic discussion to you
ineternitypast 2 years ago
i don't know what debate you are all watching, but both these men make intelligent points
i see Wilson as making more sense, but I am a Christian
if i were to insult Hitchens simply bc of this, you would say it is wrong, and I would agree
it is also wrong to insult Wilson for the same reason
ineternitypast 2 years ago
I'm nowhere near as smart or educated as Hitchens, but even I could have beat the shit out of Wilson's arguments. This debate is a Rhodes Scholar vs. a mongoloid. Wilson would have gotten more points if he had just said he believed his points on faith, without any evidence, than try to debate the palpably untrue using reason and erudition. The more you look at religion, the more you realize it's a sham, designed to make the ignorant and unenlightened feel better.
Joe41272 2 years ago
Quoting scripture is NOT evidence!
ChimeraWarrior73 2 years ago
This is painful to watch. Hitch doesn't even have to say anything. This guy is makes a jackass of himself without any help!
ChimeraWarrior73 2 years ago
Good job Hitch
SMCrim 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Initially it was a nice battle, then Hitchens starts spanking Wilson.
Wilson has this I believe what I want to believe argument and I don't think thats a worthy argument.
"How can you manage to say that miracles are only true when they're Calvinist?"
when that was said, that was Wilson's downfall.
R3APER24 2 years ago
Hmm....zoroastrianism, egyptian gods, etc all predate christianity...so wilson believes that "satan" counterfeited christianity before it even existed or what? How ridiculous! Wilson gives no good evidence for believing the miracles of christianity over any other religion.
iamheasyouaremeandwe 2 years ago
I've watched a number of debates involving Hitchens, and I must say he has no worth opponent.
darkelfpictures 2 years ago 7
I'm sure Wilson is otherwise a very intelligent man, but when it comes to defending his religious beliefs he sounds like a 5 year old child explaining why he knows unicorns are real. He has no basis for his beliefs other than his desire to wish them to be true.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago 16
@harrycrumb1989
He did mention "eye witness accounts".
Do they not count because they disagree with your faith.
RPM11111 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - Even if there were actual eyewitness documentation of Jesus' resurrection and ascention, such testimony would, at bottom, be questionable. But we don't even have this. None the the New Testament writers, including Paul, witnessed anything Jesus said or did - let alone any miracles. Even more importantly, they composed their accounts many decades after the alleged events took place. So, at best, what we have is not eyewitness testimony; only hearsay anecdotes of extraordinary events.
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@harrycrumb1989
What?
Who was Matthew (Gospel of Matthew)?
Who was Peter (NT 1 & 2 Peter)?
Who was John (NT Gospel of John; 1 & 2 John; Book of Rev)?
These three, you will find if you read the New Testament, walked with Jesus and were His disciples.
So, at best, in actual fact, we have eye-witness accounts - copies of, granted.
However, you accept narratives of history that were written after the fact by non-eye-witnesses for most everything else - just not stuff about Jesus.
Hmmm?
RPM11111 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - It appears to be overwhelmingly agreed by scholars that the book of Matthew is dated to have been written 70-100 C.E., 1 Peter 75-110 C.E., and the Gospel of John 90-100 C.E. Although these estimates may, or may not, be accurate, the problem with your line of reasoning is that you seem to want to use the testimony of the texts themselves as proof of their own testimony. That is perfectly circular and proves nothing other than that the texts says what it says...You don't see that?
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@harrycrumb1989
No Harry, you said: "None the the New Testament writers, including Paul, witnessed anything Jesus said or did - let alone any miracles." That was what your reasoning concluded. I think it has room for improvement.
My line of reasoning is the line of reasoning that "most scholars" hold to. A significant number of ancient texts relied on for historical narrative are copies of originals, but some other agenda is driving you to doubt specifically those which support the Bible.
RPM11111 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - "My line of reasoning is the line of reasoning that 'most scholars' hold to."
Please elaborate on what scholars you are refering to. I'm aware of some of the disputes among scholars regarding the original dating of several New Testament books, but I am not aware of any reputable scholar that dates any of the books as being contemporaneous with Jesus - i.e. scholars agree that none the *actual* authors were eyewitnesses.
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@harrycrumb1989
Stop trying to make strawmen. Nobody claimed they were written in Jesus' time.
Let's establish some clarity. Your original claim was that none of the Gospels were written by anybody who was with Jesus. I am saying it is widely accepted that Matthew, John and Peter (who walked with Jesus) wrote their respective Gospels and other NT books. They are the men who penned the work of which we now have copies of the originals - as is the norm with many accepted historical documents.
RPM11111 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - Would you say that the Qu'ran is a historical account? The process of winnowing fact from fiction tells us why we should doubt that - it's critical scrutiny. And scholars who've analyzed the NT not only agree that the earliest original work was written probably 40 years after Jesus, but that the works themselves bear pseudonyms - we aren't sure who the authors are. Yet you want to base your entire outlook on life on the dubious records of men who's very identity is in question? Why?
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - "They are the men who penned the work of which we now have copies of the originals..."
While you are convincing yourself of being "rational," you are merely making a huge leap of faith, especially regarding claims of miracles . Indeed we have copies of the original texts that testify to Joseph Smith being visited by the angel Moroni; as well as text verifying Muhammed rode a pegasus to heaven. But testimony of such miracles does not add to their credibility. You realize that?
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@harrycrumb1989
You seem to be changing the subject. The Bible is verified by history, archaeology, geography, other historical witings. Historical events like Sodom and Gommorah can be substantiated. Prophecies about Israel, Jerusalem and the Jews have come to pass. Such things add credibility to the Bible narrative - miracles and all. Joseph Smith and the LDS have none of these things and the original writing of the BoM was written in "reformed egyptian" - a language that never existed.
RPM11111 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - The subject we're on is how to determine the reliability and accuracy of historical documentation. If the Biblical story of Sodom and Gommorah was proven to be entirely accurate, which it's not, it would not follow that therefore every claim in the many books of the Bible must be true as well. If you can convince yourself otherwise, and if you can convince yourself the myriad of miracles in the Bible are supported by evidence, I don't know what else to say to you but "wow."
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@harrycrumb1989
Hmmm! I think the evidence for Sodom and Gommorah is overwhelming - you have to have an "agenda" to deny it. Tell me how I can produce evidence of miracles in the Bible? And tell me how my inability to do so means they didn't happen?
Can you give me the evidence for your belief in things like the universe exploding from nothing, spontaneous generation, speciation. If you can convince yourself that these are supported by evidence, I don't know what else to say to you but "wow."
RPM11111 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - The only "agenda" I may have is *conistency*; 1st, human testimony is never sufficient to establish a miracle - if it were, you would be forced to believe a slew of incredible, and contradictory events and claims. Because of this, there is no adequate evidence of miracles in *any* so-called witness of men. 2nd, although the inability to prove something doesn't mean it did not occur, it is, however, the most common characteristic of something that did not take place.
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
Comment removed
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - "Can you give me the evidence for your belief in things like the universe exploding from nothing..."
I already stated that I don't believe the universe came from nothing, and that your apparent position of: either the Bible is true, or the universe came out of nothing, is a textbook example of an either-or fallacy.
And I feel it is imprudent to form beliefs where knowledge is lacking - thus, I can comfortably admit to not have, or be unable of having, knowledge of something.
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - Pardon me if I find your method of discovering "truth" to be at least a tad silly, if not grossly inconsistent. I can only assume that if a doctor told you that you would live to be 1500 years old, you would at least doubt the claim. Yet, you think you are being reasonable in accepting the veracity of the most incredible and extraordinary claims based only on the testimony of human beings. So, what is your basis for believing such stories other than that they make you feel good?
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@harrycrumb
Okay Harry. Bottom line is you like to think your faith is in things that are all entirely credible & proven, but the reality is they have as little evidence for acceptance as my Christian faith has - and they are just as "incredible and extraordinary". I'll leave you to continue in your little bubble of reality that shuts out any possibility that you are answerable to a Creator who holds you accountable for your sinful nature, yet as lovingly reached out to you with Salvation.
RPM11111 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - Astounding. You have no idea what I believe. I haven't told you anything - apparently you are forming more beliefs on another string of assumptions. You seem to have a knack for it. And equally important is the fact that you degrade your own faith by trying to equate my beliefs - which you are completely ignorant of - as being acquired in the same manner as your own. Again, I do no pretend to know what I do not - I am comfortable with doubt. This is what *thinking* demands. Get it?
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@harrycrumb
This isn't the first time I've had such a response from one who spends much of his time on youtube mocking Christians. What do you believe then? You clearly must have drawn some conclusions with your superior methodology of sifting through the evidence with great thought and deduction. What has it amounted to - do tell? If you're going to say "I don't know" it makes sense, because you haven't provided any answers to my previous questions about the origin of life and all it's forms.
RPM11111 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - "Mocking Christians"? Please explain that one.
And do you really disagree that there are *superior* and *inferior* methods of forming beliefs - beliefs that portray reality in an accurate manner? If you do disagree, I understand why you have chosen a particular faith; and why you liken your faith to the perfectly reverse system of critical scutiny. If you do agree, you must understand that admitting one's own ignorance is a fundamental - and superior - step toward learning truth.
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@harrycrumb "...but when it comes to defending his religious beliefs he sounds like a 5 year old child explaining why he knows unicorns are real." Mocking!
You're very selective about which points you will address. You have done little by way of answering straight questions, but much in trying to place yourself on some higher ground of intellect. I really don't wish to waste any more time dealing with a man who attacks the beliefs of others while dodging straight questions about his own. Bye.
RPM11111 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - P.S. I was under the impression that because of the sin of Adam, all human beings were borne in sin - both ineluctably and totally unavoidably. So the doctrine you choose to follow says that you, and I, are to be "held accountable" for something we could not avoid. Kind of obscures the definitions of guilt and accountability don't you think? Your religious view is chalk full of such non-sensical and contradictory ideologies.
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@harrycrumb
"ineluctably-unavoidably" Don't these words have the same meaning? A typical response given by one who likes to mock the Bible, but hasn't taken the time to read it or look at the context of events. Where's that rigorous methodology, Harry? The meaning is we are born from fallen parents - who have sinned, but our guilt is in that we actively pursue sin in the face of the knowledge that it is wrong. You describe it in a nonsensical way to reinforce your bias. The old straw-man tactic.
RPM11111 1 year ago
@harrycrumb1989
See: Richard Dawkins Is Too Emotional and Dishonest about William Lane Craig
...and more of Dr Craig's work.
William Lane Craig may be more suited to fulfilling the rigorous criteria expected by someone with such a brilliant mind as yours. As you have so repeatedly expressed, Douglas Wilson and I are clearly not up to that challenge.
RPM11111 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - "However, you accept narratives of history that were written after the fact by non-eye-witnesses for most everything else - just not stuff about Jesus"
Incorrect. I try to base what I believe on a myriad of reliable sources of information. For this very reason I do not accept every last word written in the Koran as divine revelation simply because the author of the book says it was given to him by God, or a prophet of God. Anecdotes of miracles are not proven by human testimony.
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@harrycrumb1989
Oh, you're so thorough. I bet you everything you accept and adhere to has all been verified by meticulous scientific scrutiny.
If we're all just the product of matter interacting over time, why do you even care to join in these debates with pathetic comments designed to do nothing but belittle the Christians adherent? I think there's a bit more to all this than you and your friends care to admit.
I hope you find the evidence you're looking for before it's too late.
RPM11111 1 year ago
@RPM - Despite your rush to judgmdnt, many of the dearest people to me are sincere Christians. But sincerity is not a proof. Nor does it make certain claims more likely to be true. And my beliefs are not entirely based merely on what I read or what I am told, they are formed out of a process (which *is* thorough) that considers many factors - including probability, and the source's setting, motives, and reliability - which apparently your religion, like any other, will not allow of you.
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago
@RPM11111 - "If we're all just the product of matter interacting over time, why do you even care to join in these debates..?"
If indeed, we happen to "just" be the product of matter, that does not mean truth is an illusion or that it's not important. You seem to have rushed to the absurd conclusion that if the Universe has some abstruse or inconceivable purpose, or a purpose that doesn't agree with your religious assumptions, then somehow nothing would matter. Nothing could be more untrue.
harrycrumb1989 1 year ago