All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
The best definition for atheism that I have heard so far is, "The rejection of positive theistic claims due to a lack of evidence." How is that a belief system?
the rejection itself is not, but atheists do have a worldview in which there is no god and everything that comes with him.
not believing an idea that is so embedded in society has its consequences, its like removing a wall of your house, you cant pretend it has no effect. It requires that you fill this vacancy with something else, or your house collapses.
@niinja2 There is no worldview that atheists all share but one thing we agree on is that there is no evidence of a god or gods. There is also one thing we all hate and that is BS and anyone who says that there is evidence of a god or gods including anything that comes with a god or gods, is full of it. Calling BS on a faulty idea is going to have consequences, if that faulty idea is embedded in society, but most of those consequences are brought on by the people who believe in the faulty idea.
Maybe all atheists dont share the same worldview but they do have a worldview, i think there is even more variation among christians, there are 33000 deniminations
"but most of those consequences are brought on by the people who believe in the faulty idea."
you did not understand , if you believe a philosophy is wrong and if you get rid of one "BS" idea, then its a natural consequence that you need to get rid of other ideas that are dependent on "BS".
The idea of higher purpose , without God , karma, destiny there is no higher purpose, only local purposes that we ascribe to each other. If you lack even this local purpose in life, if you see no point going on, it would be perfectly logical to simply "log out" of this game of life.
The idea of Objective morality is dependent on "BS".
@niinja2 I'm saying I don't know if there is a higher pupose, and neither do you. If you try to tell me that you have evidence that human beings have a higher purpose, I'm going to call BS on you. I choose not to invent a fake higher purpose for myself and I still find many reasons not to "log out". Objective morality is not dependant on superstitions. I believe that all human beings deserve totally equal treatment including homosexuals, religions don't. Where did I get that moral from?
"I believe that all human beings deserve totally equal treatment including homosexuals, religions don't. Where did I get that moral from?"
from yourself, its your subjective intuition with which might disagree with.
If there is no God, karma,destinity or whatever there is certainly no higher purpose then the ones we gave to ourselfs. Unlike you for people who have no local purpose , it would be perfectly logical to "log out".
@SixStringDeity id beleif was non beleif of a non-point. it is a belief like the earth spins around its axis and the beleif that i would become enormous if i ate nothing more than McRib sandwiches.
@kelbykross1 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
Talking about G.A. Wells who Lennox has a problem with: George Albert Wells (born May 22, 1926), usually known as G. A. Wells, is an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He is best known as an advocate of the idea that Jesus is a largely mythical rather than a historical figure.
if you cannot prove either the existence or lack there of then it is just as much a leap of FAITH do declare god doesn't exist as it is to declare that he does, I have never met an athiest who agrees with this yet many agnostics do as you can see that the statement I have made is that only agnostics have no faith as they do not believe either statement.
Hold on! Wait a minute. What Shermer just said was, basically, what difference does it make if the proof that Dawkins used came from a non-expert source?! Well let's think...if someone wrote a book on the history of Spain and they used Brett Favre as a resource then that book and that information would not be reputable. The debate was lost right there. "Game...blouses" - Dave Chappelle
Lennox seems to think the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth means that everything said about him in the Gospels and every saying put on his lips is true. This is a case where Lennox should consult NT scholars and historians. Historians don't believe everything written down about some ancient dude - far from it.
I think Sherman is to arrogant and insulting. He laughs at everything and often insult Lennox comments here and there. Sometimes its hard to take Sherman seriously. John Lennox is much more gentle and sweet in his approach. Id like to buy him some coffee. :)
I reject that Dawkin's citing Wells was a faux pas. He does make the point that there are some people who try to build the case that Jesus never existed, and he points to Wells, but he THEN points out that this view is not the view of Historical academics. I did not walk away from the God Delusion thinking that Dawkins thought jesus never existed, ergo no faux pas.
Lennox doesn't give Dawkins the courtesy of mentioning this, therefore I'd say Lennox is the one who committed the faux pas.
@HolyRevelation Can you explain what you mean by this comment? I never thought his naturalistic world view was ever concealed, and I fail to see how what Lennox said demonstrated it was illogical.
It strikes me that Dr Lennox is preaching more than providing evidence, which is no real surprise. Dr Shermer is using evidence to illustrate his points, while Dr Lennox takes twice as long to reach a fuzzy conclusion.
@EllisRobbo Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
"not based on a solid ground" Its not perfect historical evidence, but its as good as most ancient documents. If we say Jesus did not exist, then most documents on historical figures would be useless.
"denying contrary evidence" i could argue this is what your dong, because you being an atheist and Jesus being involved with religion.
No i understand "incredulity" (just realised i said "belief", when i meant to say "disbelief") but what do mean by "incredulity is not a basis for historicity"?
@sned10000 I'm not asking for perfect evidence, but evidence that at least actually points to Jesus. Not some "people started believin in it and I cannot believe how Christianity could've started otherwise".
I'm not denying contrary evidence, i'm just showing you how your supposed evidence isn't very good.
/but what do mean by "incredulity is not a basis for historicity"?/ You asked why people became Christians and died for it, if it was a lie. As if your inability to imagine any other scenario
Actually, G.A Wells has his fair share of historical knowledge and is an advocate of the non-historicity thesis (Jesus is a myth). So he's not such a bad source.
@DaGavinX The fact is G.A.Wells is not a historian and pretty much every credible historian does acknowledge the existence of Jesus. Dawkins stated that Jesus' existence was in "dispute" among ancient historians. This is an outright lie on Dawkins behalf. Upon responding to this lie, Dawkins said "it is not an important matter" Though seeing as 1/3 of the world are Christians, Jesus' existence is incredibly important. As Lennox said, its rather odd coming from someone so keen on evidence.
@sned10000 "every credible historian does acknowledge the existence of Jesus"--Credible historian? This is very dishonest of you. Anyways, there are historians who don't accept the existence of Jesus. Scholars on the other hand, they accept the existence of Jesus, blindly
"Dawkins stated that Jesus' existence was in "dispute" among ancient historians. This is an outright lie on Dawkins behalf."--It's not a lie, but if you only see one side of the issue, you'll be in the dark.
@DaGavinX "This is very dishonest of you" its not. I studied History classics at uni, there are NO mainstream historians who believe Jesus was just made up. There are historians who believe he was not divine, however they all agree, a man named Jesus on whom the gospel stories are based on, existed. Dawkins did lie because it is not in dispute. Its like me saying the evolution theory is in dispute amongst scientists and then quoting some professor of french. Its dishonest at the very least
@sned10000 You mean Lennox quotiong Dawkins lied, but that's beside the point. Your comparison between disputing Jesus and disputing evolution is awful, because as you should know science and history don't work exactly the same. But G. A Wells is not some ID'er ranting about evolution, but know a lot about this subject, if he's also a professor of German really shouldn't matter. His objections are the important thing, it's clear neither Lennox nor you wants to even hear them-
@DaGavinX Dawkins was being dishonest by claiming Jesus' existence was in dispute, even Dawkins admits he was wrong. He should have said something along the lines "there are some who think he did not exist" he should never had said it is in dispute between historians, when it clearly isn't. It might not be the best analogy but you get my point; all historians (their job is to study history in depth) believe he existed.
@sned10000 It is, only bible scholars say it isn't. But Dawkins isn't a historian, so I would agree if you said he shouldn't make claims like that about history, but that's not important now.
@DaGavinX Your rite, its not important when considering Dawkins arguments against god. His arguments have little to do with the existence of Jesus. However, like i said, Christianity can account for over 1/3 of the worlds population, so it is a little bit dishonest to say such thing, when Christianity relies on the fact the Jesus existed. But Jesus' existence does not prove in any way he was god. Its whether or not you think he rose from the dead; Historians do dispute over this.
What does it matter how many people Christianity can account for? Christianity is not only based on Jesus rising from the dead, but also on Jesus ever existing to begin with.
@DaGavinX Can you name 2 historians who think Jesus did not exist? What standards? All the historical standards (Author's agenda,Linguistic analysis, Historical context, Multiple attestation etc) point to the existence of Jesus. i mentioned the amount of Christians, because Dawkins said it wasn't important whether Jesus existed or not, when it obviously is to over a 1/3 of the population.
Why would you say its an "allegorical fiction"? I think its no coincidence, that the only people to have EVER denied Jesus' existence, have lived furthest away from his lifetime. Why would so many of the first Christians (the ones who saw Jesus) give up their lives over someone they knew didn't exist? Please don't just ignore this question, only reply if you can give an explanation to why the Christians were giving their lives up.
@DaGavinX theory works rite? You take a question, come up with theory that fits the evidence, then you see if there are any faults in the theory. The question is; why were the gospels written in the first place (no they were not all by disciples)? why did people give their lives up for this Jesus, and why did Christianity suddenly expand in the areas he was reported to have taught in?
@sned10000 The theory only works for an easy "it could only had happened this way" kind of manner. When you look at the alleged evidence for Jesus. The whole thing starts to look a bit shaky.
Incredulity as to how or why the gospel were written or why people gave their lives for it, in no way gives any credibility to the story. Would you believe anything because just because you can't explain how else it could have happened, even in the light of evidence of the contrary?
@DaGavinX Going on basic historical standards (the same we use for all historical figures) Jesus existed. If you can't accept that, then i can't see how you can accept any historical record on a historical figure.
@sned10000 I'm not saying that historical methods aren't being used to provide positive evidence for Jesus, but that there are also historians who doubt Jesus existence, also on historical standards. Which you've been trying to deny.
@DaGavinX G.A wells may have a theory, but it is one that is not supported by any credible historians. Im not knocking Wells, he's obviously an intelligent man, but i can also quite easily argue that neither you nor Dawkins want to hear the objections to Wells' theory. It just so happens that the people who object to Wells are in the overwhelming majority. And like i said, iv studied the history of Jesus and it is almost certain he existed.
@sned10000 Again with the "credible historians" thing. I have heard positive evidence for Jesus as negative evidence, so my point stands, it is in dispute. Whatever the majority thinks doesn't matter here, you still need to prove conclusively that Jesus existed if you want to claim victory.
You're credentials are also irrelevant to this discussion. I could say I have studied history and am certain he did not exist. Would you believe me?
@DaGavinX Just curious, what evidence do think disputes Jesus' existence? One piece of evidence overlooked by many who have not studied the bibles history is the life of St. Peter. We know from numerous, independent, contemporary accounts, that Peter died upside down on a cross because he did not consider himself worthy the same death as Jesus. Peter was an eyewitness to Jesus. Why would he give up his life in such a gruesome, painful manner, over someone he knew did not exist?
-No contemporary writings about him (no eyewitness): Peter, as you should know, was not an eyewitness. There wasn't, neither independent accounts nor contemporary, that' says a lot. Earliest writings about Jesus, came about 20-40 years after Jesus death.
-Dependence for Mark of the other gospels.
-The Gospel of Mark shows clear signs of being written as an allegorical fiction
@DaGavinX "Peter, as you should know, was not an eyewitness" Are you for real?
"20-40 years after Jesus death" The standard for writing a roman emperors biography was 400 years after their death, 20-40 years after means there would have been eyewitnesses still alive to disprove marks gospels claim. Notice how no one had ever written to deny Jesus' existence, not even the Jews, and the gospels don't exactly shine a good light on them.
"Dependence for Mark" The fact that there even is a gospel
@sned10000 Yes, I am. Tell do you think the authors of the gospels were actually the disciples?
"20-40 years after means there would have been eyewitnesses still alive to disprove marks gospels claim."--Also time for the story to get tampered with, you know it was all word of mouth in those times.
"Notice how no one had ever written to deny Jesus' existence, not even the Jews, and the gospels don't exactly shine a good light on them."--No one wrote about him! (except for the gospels)
@DaGavinX No m8 remember iv studied these in depth, iv had to write essays on them marked by the CIE. I was giving you examples where Jesus was mentioned outside the bible, some of them are in dispute amongst scholars, take Tacticus for example, he is the best roman historian we have, obviously he writes from hearsay, but ancient history relies on hearsay. For example would you then deny Hannibal's battles with Rome, in the battle of Cannae? Nearly all the ancient historical documents are
@sned10000 I'm trying to deny your credentials, I'm merely saying that the case for the historical Jesus is not based on a solid ground. Again, Jesus was not mentioned outside of the bible.
If I would deny Hannibal's battles? I don't know, but at least I'd hold a little skepticism about it. I bet no one would try to defend any other historical figure as ardently as they do with Jesus, so I guess there would so many people denying contrary evidence.
@DaGavinX The best evidence i would give is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ.(We know this is true becuase it is well documented by numerous roman historians during emperor Neros' reign which began in 54 A.D, so most Christians back then were eyewitnesses. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.
@sned10000 "People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie."--This sums it all up. The only have to believe it's true, nothing more.
Eyewitness to what, I would ask, and where are their testimonies? Also why no historian of the time wrote about this "famous" miracle-doer? A lot is laking for this character.
@sned10000 Alvar Ellegård, Richard Carrier, Niels Peter Lemche, David Fitzgerald, Dennis Mcdonald, Robert M. Price... Some historians, scholars, philosohers and Theologians who don't accept the historical Jesus, or at least debate the consensus and explore other alternatives. So, are you still going to deny the fact that the historicity of Jesus is debated.
@DaGavinX My explanation to this would be that Jesus existed. It fits ALL the evidence, so now you have to prove the theory is false, conspiracies (such as saying the stories were tampered with) are not strong enough to break a theory down, especially not the theory that the historical Jesus actually existed.
@DaGavinX composed from hearsay; remember they didn't have cameras etc back then. Also the bible is not just one source; it is a wealth of sources compiled together. We know for a historical fact, that Christians existed around the time of Jesus' death. If a person never existed, why on earth would people start calling themselves Christians? I just can't buy your theory that he never existed. When you look at all the evidence, the most plausible, logical, answer would be Jesus existed.
@sned10000 Wealth of sources compiled together? So now the bible is biblical and non-biblical source? That sounds easy. Yes there were Christians, so? Like I said before: incredulity is not a basis for historicity.
"I just can't buy your theory that he never existed. When you look at all the evidence, the most plausible, logical, answer would be Jesus existed."--Well, I don't know what to say to this. I've seen the evidence as well and Jesus doesn't sound nor plausible nor logical.
@DaGavinX "biblical and non-biblical source" No idea what your talking about. The bible is a collection of documents written about Chrstianity.
"incredulity is not a basis for historicity" Again, what are you talking about. incredulous is to express belief. Your statement makes no sense. We know there were many Christians around the time of Jesus' death; these people will all have been Jews. So we know "something" must have happened in their lives. Not only did they completely change their
@sned10000 /"biblical and non-biblical source" No idea what your talking about. The bible is a collection of documents written about Chrstianity./Yeah... the bible is all about Christianity, get real.
"Again, what are you talking about. incredulous is to express belief." Huh? Do I have to give you the definition of incredulity? Okay, then: "a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real ".
And you presupose that something happening in the lives of Jews...
@DaGavinX religious beliefs, but they were willing to die for whatever it was they saw. So how else could you explain why these Jews suddenly changed? Something most defiantly happened, what would you say created Christianity?
@DaGavinX "Other religions show that you only need a myth and people willing to believe it." But do people Change from a religion they were brought up in? and then give their life up over what they saw?
@sned10000 Well, actually not all of them were indoctrinated from birth. Some were educated people with potential future, what happened is that they were made to believe that there are rewards in the afterlife waiting for them for their matyrdom, among other reasons. So yes, suicide bombers are an example of this, some of them at least.
The point is, there are converts to other religions, so it happens.
@DaGavinX True there were 1 or 2 who were not muslim from birth. But none of them changed from one religion to another.The Jews who were reported to have met Jesus were born and raised Jewish, and we know, religious beliefs back then were taken very seriously. "does not fit the evidence" where does it not fit?
Science theories go by the same standards, in the sense that a better theory has to replace an existing theory.
@DaGavinX Yes people do change their minds. But no one has ever changed from a religion they were brought up in and then subsequently died *peacfully* for their new belief (except for Christians). when an atheist converts, thats different. An atheist has no religious belief in the first place. Anyways, Dawkins was wrong for saying it was in dispute amongst historians, its not. There are also people who claim the holocaust never happened.
@DaGavinX Also note how the Christians died peacefully, suicide bombers inflict a lot of violence. The Christians were killed because they refused to partake in the roman gods festivals.
" I could disprove the existence of Jesus without positing an alternative immediately" No thats not true. this is basic history, and science for that matter. If you want to disprove a theory that already fits the evidence we do have, you would HAVE to put a more plausible theory in its place.
@sned10000 Well, Christians have inflicted violence also, so I don't see where you're going with this.
The current consensus about Jesus, does not fit the evidence! What it's needed to completely disprove would to show that it doesn't fit ANY evidence. Putting a new theory in it's place it is not part of disproving the current one, but a different effort.
in don't know why you talk about science and history. I could show that, for example evolution is false, but creating a new theory is not...
@DaGavinX There really isn't a single strong argument to suggest Jesus did not exist. The theory of evolution fits the evidence, so if i were to say it was not true, i would have to give a more robust theory. The existence of Jesus does fit the evidence, how can you say it doesn't? It would explain, why Christians came about, why there are so many documents reporting Jesus, why people gave their lives relying on his existence, etc.
@sned10000 If not strong, at least there, but what you consider them to be is irrelevant. If you were to say evolution is not true you would need to show is not consistent with the current data, coming up with a new theory could take time.
"The existence of Jesus does fit the evidence, how can you say it doesn't?" What have we been discussing the whole freaking day?!
@sned10000 Not all the evidence and even the evidence that it's supposed to fit is not very conclusive. There's no need for a planned consppiracy for the stories to have been tampered with, it could've been involuntary. Anyways, that's just one of the reasons the historicity of Jesus is debated.
@DaGavinX And the thing is, if you want to disprove the theory that Jesus existed, you would have to replace it with a more plausible theory that would answer the question how Christianity started.
@sned10000 Not at all, I could disprove the existence of Jesus without positing an alternative immediately, more so when the accepted consensus is so faulty. There would be a interesting investigation to find the real starter of Christianity.
@DaGavinX "Would you believe me" That would depend on the theory you gave. If you could provide some solid historical evidence suggesting Jesus did not exist, then yes, i would consider your claim.
Haha this Michael is less smarter than Dawkins but Amaterasu than Hitchens . I even knew that disbelief in A God is a belief . And I agree so many people talk again the historic Christ yet they don't even take the time to see the evidence . Lennox is great I hope to one day debate like him for the cause of Christ
@blopajmbar62 It seems to me like most of the people watching these debates are Athiests who have nothing better to say than just bash on Christainty. I love Lennox he is so smart, I like Micheal Shermer too but I see that his points are very futile even though it he tries to make sense of it. got a whole bunch of haters watching and commenting lol..
I think its so odd how when Shermer talks about Flew "being baffled by DNA" he mentions that a majority of scientist are not so, so a majority counts. But when talking about the existence of God a majority doesn't count when a huge number of people believe in some God?
@godswordsheal I think he said many. And also the implication was that if someone can't understand something scientific it doesn't mean others can't. It wasn't saying that because the majority do. It is like some of the freaky parts of quantum physics I can't get my head around. Doesn't stop them from making sence to those with more understanding than me. Same is true for religion. Just because I don't understand how Jesus defeated Satan by dying and yet is still in the world doesnt stop others.
Atheist's are just as guilty as Theist's in the sense that they are so sure there is no God when the fact is, no one knows for sure. No one really knows and no one will ever know in our lifetime...Just enjoy life while you can and let's all just follow the "Live and let live" rule. Let people believe or not believe and don't riducule them for their beliefs. The world would be a much better place if everyone could follow that rule. But that's just a dream of mine I guess...
@buitrami Atheists don't claim that god does not exist, they just don't believe in god - as Shermer says in this very video! Also, it is true that god can not be disproven, but the same can be said about an infinitude of silly things you can make up. (allah, thor, unicorns, astrology etc.) The reason your "live and let live" is but a dream is that the holy books make incompatible claims about the nature of morality and the afterlife.
Atheism: a thesim. Without god. It is not a belief. It is the lack of a particular belief. Just like Lennox doesn't believe in Zeus or Genesha. It is not the belief in the abscence of Zeus, it is simply the lack of a belief in a proposition. Idiot!
Lennox tries to make people laugh every time he gets PWNED to make it seem as if the audience agrees with him but besides making a few people laugh at his absurdities he fails the argument logically.
Lennox talks about how the resurrection is evidence that jesus and god are real. He believes there is "evidence". The evidence he may want to look at is how many "resurrections" there were back then and prior as well as when it happened to show up in the "story". It is a book of stories...not a book to base your life on. If you want, pull the bad stuff out and just have a book of good moral stories. Oh...that might be a problem...god may strike us down.
Lennox brings up wotanism and tries to compare it to atheists problem with christianity. The reason atheists attack christianity is because it is pervasive and affects all aspects our daily lives...our governments, our wars, science, education or polices. It is a complete conversation ender...god did it...end of story. I haven't seen too many wotan churches or pushes for wotanism in our governmental policies, schools and/or geopolitical chess games.
Lennox.. over and over again.. he craps on and on and on....
Desperately trying to cover up the holes in his argument
( by the way.. as far as I know, Dawkins never said he wasn't interested in the resurrection.. he said " how could you possibly believe it ? " .. there's a difference )
@xoloxum what is wrong with it, if some scientist do not belive in naturalism , they can talk against it and show evidence, if no of them show anything, they maybe both have the answer
Ok.. so the chance of a universe being created with a low entropy to start with (like our universe has) is about 1 part in 10 to the power of - 10 to the power of 123 - to be honest when that kinda figure is pulled out you it gives ample reasoning for theism in generall No? Why on earth is it that proffessors who defend it are desccribed as ridiculous then?
@adlerbr12 correction, there's no historical 'contemporary' evidence for Jesus, which puts him in the same boat as plato, socrates, alexander the great, various roman emperors throughout history, nero and plenty of other historical figures. if you deny Jesus' existence than you must deny all these other people's as well. but this would just be silly.
"...and atheists say they just go one god further. Well that's like saying there's not much difference between marriage and celibacy, it's just one relationship less".
Well finally that's one thing Lennox has said that I agree with. I've always hated the 'one god further' argument for exactly this reason. Please, fellow atheists, never use this argument again.
@sam51092 (Smart) Atheists don't necessarily use this as a reason why god doesn't exist, more to get the person they're arguing with to critically examine the reasons why they believe in God.
@jonberg That might work for the god of any specific religion, but not for the god hypothesis in general. Refuting the god of any specific religion doesn't begin to deal with things like the cosmological argument, design argument etc.
Religious loons use this new tactic called " he's exactly right" as if this statement is to clarify that the religious nut job in the debate has some rationale.
Why do Christians insist there is evidence of Jesus' resurrection outside of the Scripture? I am not saying, there isn't. I am not that familiar with history, but shouldn't the word of God be enough for Christians? What the hell?
"but shouldn't the word of God be enough for Christians? What the hell? "
No, it is not enough just knowing that God exists. It's a knowledge stopper, if you say God did it, then you stop thinking about how God did it. Furthermore, it isn't enough for Atheists, so in some sense we need to explain it through secular sources.
@Gaaraoftheoasis actually there are evidences of two things : that Christ was crucified and died, and that the corpse dissappeared. Every roman istorian says that. To the fact that he has risen from the dead we have the testemonies of two roman soldiers of that time that write their convinction about that. We have a lot of historical fact about many things.
@Gaaraoftheoasis Of course some can be faked, but there is no argument that christ has died on the croix and that he vanished from the grave without anyone taking him. That I hope any sain man can agree. More than that is discutable , but those are doumented facts.
Gaaraoftheoasis, in the Bible, Paul said that if Jesus was not resurrected from the grave, then the Christian faith is utterly futile. Therefore in order for me to have faith in God, I must first know whether or not he resurrected. That is why empirical evidence for Christianity is so important. If Jesus never died on the cross, there is no reason for Christians to preach the gospel because then it would just another lie.
"The idea of human belief and it's distribution seems to me to a case of not feeding all the evidence into the pot".
No, it's called the fallacy ad populum. What people believe, whoever they are is irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant. It's what we can deduce from facts and ideas that is important.
Call yourself rational? You don't even except the evidence in front of your eyes! What evidence you ask? The testimony of several ignorant men in the desert who didn't actually see the events first-hand and only thought about writing it down 50-70 years later. What more evidence do you need? New Testimony scholars all agree on their total accuracy you understand...
@oneearth22222 one cannot "prove" that it happened, just like you can't "prove" that Brutus killed Julius Caesar. We believe it happened because of the historical texts. because there are historical texts of Christ's resurrection, then that is what will be used in the debate. if you have proof that he didn't resurrect, then i would love to see it. otherwise, Jesus's resurrection is just as much of a fact as Julius Caesar's assassination...
can we please refrain from swear words on the comments? its garbage. i think this is one reason the world is dirty because of the dirty words coming out from the mouth of those supposedly "educated".
Shermer is up to his neck in it if he really thinks there are no positive implications required for atheism (assuming you have an interest intellectual fulfillment).
You must accept materialism as an outright priory. Naturalistic philosophy which is a logical application of priory materialism which if you have half a brain leads nihilism if you are capable of applying your prior philosophy to behavioral rationality.
"assuming you have an interest intellectual fulfillment"
Certainly i have an interest in intellectual fulfillment but not intellectual certainty which I assume your getting confused with.
"You must accept materialism as an outright priory"
I beg to differ - again referring back to your first statement - if you decide from the start you must reach the level of certainty then maybe you must accept this position, as an atheist I don't. I suspect this is why your a theist?
"Naturalistic philosophy which is a logical application of priory materialism which if you have half a brain leads nihilism if you are capable of applying your prior philosophy to behavioral rationality."
Now your getting closer to reality - fortunately this is where my conscience encourages me to put myself in someone elses position though it is difficult at times.
And in defence of Shermer he didn't say he believes in a multiverse.
I think the point on Hitchens and Dawkins not taking evidence seriously is miss leading. Of course they take evidence seriously but what they do is what any scientist or sensible person does and evaluates the credibility of the evidence and its source before deciding whether to take it seriously. They don't refute the probable existence of Jesus just the validity of the miraculous claims.
4:50 I am glad someone pulled john up on his Ad Hominem against Dawkins source especially when he then went off and did the same himself a couple of minutes later.
Atheism is a positive belief because atheisms tend to have positive beleifs? Errr no john. You smuggle something in here by equating two things. Atheism IS a nothing. Materialism IS a something. You put the two together and try to ascribe the positives of one to the other. Thats where your confusion comes from. Glad to help.
Lennox says he believes because of the evidence. WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE? It's entirely hearsay from 2000 years ago that all of those Jesus miracles happened. It just boggles my mind how weak his stance is, yet he says it as if it's a reasonable response to Shermer.
This has been flagged as spam show
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
mamainmancj 6 days ago
we actually do prove things by statistics
niinja2 1 month ago
The best definition for atheism that I have heard so far is, "The rejection of positive theistic claims due to a lack of evidence." How is that a belief system?
jmg94j 2 months ago
@jmg94j It isn't. People just don't know how to interpret language anymore. The word is a non-descriptor. People can't fathom that.
namnack 1 month ago
@jmg94j
"How is that a belief system?"
the rejection itself is not, but atheists do have a worldview in which there is no god and everything that comes with him.
not believing an idea that is so embedded in society has its consequences, its like removing a wall of your house, you cant pretend it has no effect. It requires that you fill this vacancy with something else, or your house collapses.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 There is no worldview that atheists all share but one thing we agree on is that there is no evidence of a god or gods. There is also one thing we all hate and that is BS and anyone who says that there is evidence of a god or gods including anything that comes with a god or gods, is full of it. Calling BS on a faulty idea is going to have consequences, if that faulty idea is embedded in society, but most of those consequences are brought on by the people who believe in the faulty idea.
jmg94j 1 month ago
@jmg94j
Maybe all atheists dont share the same worldview but they do have a worldview, i think there is even more variation among christians, there are 33000 deniminations
"but most of those consequences are brought on by the people who believe in the faulty idea."
you did not understand , if you believe a philosophy is wrong and if you get rid of one "BS" idea, then its a natural consequence that you need to get rid of other ideas that are dependent on "BS".
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 "you need to get rid of other ideas that are dependent on "BS". Which other ideas are dependant on BS?
jmg94j 1 month ago
@jmg94j
The idea of higher purpose , without God , karma, destiny there is no higher purpose, only local purposes that we ascribe to each other. If you lack even this local purpose in life, if you see no point going on, it would be perfectly logical to simply "log out" of this game of life.
The idea of Objective morality is dependent on "BS".
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 I'm saying I don't know if there is a higher pupose, and neither do you. If you try to tell me that you have evidence that human beings have a higher purpose, I'm going to call BS on you. I choose not to invent a fake higher purpose for myself and I still find many reasons not to "log out". Objective morality is not dependant on superstitions. I believe that all human beings deserve totally equal treatment including homosexuals, religions don't. Where did I get that moral from?
jmg94j 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jmg94j
"I believe that all human beings deserve totally equal treatment including homosexuals, religions don't. Where did I get that moral from?"
from yourself, its your subjective intuition with which might disagree with.
If there is no God, karma,destinity or whatever there is certainly no higher purpose then the ones we gave to ourselfs. Unlike you for people who have no local purpose , it would be perfectly logical to "log out".
niinja2 1 month ago
Shermer has some cheerleaders in the audience!
Lisztman88 5 months ago
if atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.
i didn't make that up, but i think it should be spread
kelbykross1 6 months ago 3
@kelbykross1 atheism is a belief. that there is no God. it is a faith, in that sense. its a linguistic game to act like there is a difference.
SixStringDeity 4 months ago
@SixStringDeity id beleif was non beleif of a non-point. it is a belief like the earth spins around its axis and the beleif that i would become enormous if i ate nothing more than McRib sandwiches.
kelbykross1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kelbykross1 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
Comment removed
kelbykross1 6 months ago
Talking about G.A. Wells who Lennox has a problem with: George Albert Wells (born May 22, 1926), usually known as G. A. Wells, is an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He is best known as an advocate of the idea that Jesus is a largely mythical rather than a historical figure.
MrWagman11 6 months ago
if you cannot prove either the existence or lack there of then it is just as much a leap of FAITH do declare god doesn't exist as it is to declare that he does, I have never met an athiest who agrees with this yet many agnostics do as you can see that the statement I have made is that only agnostics have no faith as they do not believe either statement.
AaronLowden 7 months ago
Hold on! Wait a minute. What Shermer just said was, basically, what difference does it make if the proof that Dawkins used came from a non-expert source?! Well let's think...if someone wrote a book on the history of Spain and they used Brett Favre as a resource then that book and that information would not be reputable. The debate was lost right there. "Game...blouses" - Dave Chappelle
mrcolbusmaximus 7 months ago
Lennox seems to think the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth means that everything said about him in the Gospels and every saying put on his lips is true. This is a case where Lennox should consult NT scholars and historians. Historians don't believe everything written down about some ancient dude - far from it.
macroman52 7 months ago
@macroman52 Nothing written in the bible has ever been proven false. That....would make it....true. Bitch hahahaha
mrcolbusmaximus 7 months ago
I think Sherman is to arrogant and insulting. He laughs at everything and often insult Lennox comments here and there. Sometimes its hard to take Sherman seriously. John Lennox is much more gentle and sweet in his approach. Id like to buy him some coffee. :)
funnystarchild 7 months ago
Comment removed
funnystarchild 7 months ago
Shermer is a paid skeptic, is he not? And you idiots love to eat it up. Just goes to show how foolish and naive you fucking humans are.
Seigu007 8 months ago
I reject that Dawkin's citing Wells was a faux pas. He does make the point that there are some people who try to build the case that Jesus never existed, and he points to Wells, but he THEN points out that this view is not the view of Historical academics. I did not walk away from the God Delusion thinking that Dawkins thought jesus never existed, ergo no faux pas.
Lennox doesn't give Dawkins the courtesy of mentioning this, therefore I'd say Lennox is the one who committed the faux pas.
Brettah31 9 months ago
@Brettah31 Shut the fuck up, you God-hater. Worthless atheists like you should just drown themselves and get it over with,
Seigu007 8 months ago
@Seigu007 love they neighbour,man. I believe this was advice from someone you may or may not be a fan of.
Also, I don't hate God. I just wish he'd call from time to time.
Brettah31 8 months ago
@Seigu007 Now that's God's love right there folks!
2MuchSkill 6 months ago
At 1:45, Shermer's naturalistic, illogical world view get's exposed.
HolyRevelation 9 months ago
@HolyRevelation Can you explain what you mean by this comment? I never thought his naturalistic world view was ever concealed, and I fail to see how what Lennox said demonstrated it was illogical.
Brettah31 9 months ago
It strikes me that Dr Lennox is preaching more than providing evidence, which is no real surprise. Dr Shermer is using evidence to illustrate his points, while Dr Lennox takes twice as long to reach a fuzzy conclusion.
EllisRobbo 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EllisRobbo Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
"not based on a solid ground" Its not perfect historical evidence, but its as good as most ancient documents. If we say Jesus did not exist, then most documents on historical figures would be useless.
"denying contrary evidence" i could argue this is what your dong, because you being an atheist and Jesus being involved with religion.
No i understand "incredulity" (just realised i said "belief", when i meant to say "disbelief") but what do mean by "incredulity is not a basis for historicity"?
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 I'm not asking for perfect evidence, but evidence that at least actually points to Jesus. Not some "people started believin in it and I cannot believe how Christianity could've started otherwise".
I'm not denying contrary evidence, i'm just showing you how your supposed evidence isn't very good.
/but what do mean by "incredulity is not a basis for historicity"?/ You asked why people became Christians and died for it, if it was a lie. As if your inability to imagine any other scenario
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@sned10000 somehow proved Jesus was real. That's what I mean.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
Michael Shermer is such a clown. Haha, hilarious guy.
treasuredroperX 10 months ago
Shermer speaks to DNA?
Go study Francis Collins...
hammertime870 11 months ago
Actually, G.A Wells has his fair share of historical knowledge and is an advocate of the non-historicity thesis (Jesus is a myth). So he's not such a bad source.
DaGavinX 1 year ago
@DaGavinX The fact is G.A.Wells is not a historian and pretty much every credible historian does acknowledge the existence of Jesus. Dawkins stated that Jesus' existence was in "dispute" among ancient historians. This is an outright lie on Dawkins behalf. Upon responding to this lie, Dawkins said "it is not an important matter" Though seeing as 1/3 of the world are Christians, Jesus' existence is incredibly important. As Lennox said, its rather odd coming from someone so keen on evidence.
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 "every credible historian does acknowledge the existence of Jesus"--Credible historian? This is very dishonest of you. Anyways, there are historians who don't accept the existence of Jesus. Scholars on the other hand, they accept the existence of Jesus, blindly
"Dawkins stated that Jesus' existence was in "dispute" among ancient historians. This is an outright lie on Dawkins behalf."--It's not a lie, but if you only see one side of the issue, you'll be in the dark.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX "This is very dishonest of you" its not. I studied History classics at uni, there are NO mainstream historians who believe Jesus was just made up. There are historians who believe he was not divine, however they all agree, a man named Jesus on whom the gospel stories are based on, existed. Dawkins did lie because it is not in dispute. Its like me saying the evolution theory is in dispute amongst scientists and then quoting some professor of french. Its dishonest at the very least
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 You mean Lennox quotiong Dawkins lied, but that's beside the point. Your comparison between disputing Jesus and disputing evolution is awful, because as you should know science and history don't work exactly the same. But G. A Wells is not some ID'er ranting about evolution, but know a lot about this subject, if he's also a professor of German really shouldn't matter. His objections are the important thing, it's clear neither Lennox nor you wants to even hear them-
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX Dawkins was being dishonest by claiming Jesus' existence was in dispute, even Dawkins admits he was wrong. He should have said something along the lines "there are some who think he did not exist" he should never had said it is in dispute between historians, when it clearly isn't. It might not be the best analogy but you get my point; all historians (their job is to study history in depth) believe he existed.
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 It is, only bible scholars say it isn't. But Dawkins isn't a historian, so I would agree if you said he shouldn't make claims like that about history, but that's not important now.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX Your rite, its not important when considering Dawkins arguments against god. His arguments have little to do with the existence of Jesus. However, like i said, Christianity can account for over 1/3 of the worlds population, so it is a little bit dishonest to say such thing, when Christianity relies on the fact the Jesus existed. But Jesus' existence does not prove in any way he was god. Its whether or not you think he rose from the dead; Historians do dispute over this.
sned10000 10 months ago
What does it matter how many people Christianity can account for? Christianity is not only based on Jesus rising from the dead, but also on Jesus ever existing to begin with.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX Can you name 2 historians who think Jesus did not exist? What standards? All the historical standards (Author's agenda,Linguistic analysis, Historical context, Multiple attestation etc) point to the existence of Jesus. i mentioned the amount of Christians, because Dawkins said it wasn't important whether Jesus existed or not, when it obviously is to over a 1/3 of the population.
sned10000 10 months ago
would suggest he existed.
Why would you say its an "allegorical fiction"? I think its no coincidence, that the only people to have EVER denied Jesus' existence, have lived furthest away from his lifetime. Why would so many of the first Christians (the ones who saw Jesus) give up their lives over someone they knew didn't exist? Please don't just ignore this question, only reply if you can give an explanation to why the Christians were giving their lives up.
sned10000 10 months ago
@DaGavinX theory works rite? You take a question, come up with theory that fits the evidence, then you see if there are any faults in the theory. The question is; why were the gospels written in the first place (no they were not all by disciples)? why did people give their lives up for this Jesus, and why did Christianity suddenly expand in the areas he was reported to have taught in?
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 The theory only works for an easy "it could only had happened this way" kind of manner. When you look at the alleged evidence for Jesus. The whole thing starts to look a bit shaky.
Incredulity as to how or why the gospel were written or why people gave their lives for it, in no way gives any credibility to the story. Would you believe anything because just because you can't explain how else it could have happened, even in the light of evidence of the contrary?
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX Going on basic historical standards (the same we use for all historical figures) Jesus existed. If you can't accept that, then i can't see how you can accept any historical record on a historical figure.
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 I'm not saying that historical methods aren't being used to provide positive evidence for Jesus, but that there are also historians who doubt Jesus existence, also on historical standards. Which you've been trying to deny.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX G.A wells may have a theory, but it is one that is not supported by any credible historians. Im not knocking Wells, he's obviously an intelligent man, but i can also quite easily argue that neither you nor Dawkins want to hear the objections to Wells' theory. It just so happens that the people who object to Wells are in the overwhelming majority. And like i said, iv studied the history of Jesus and it is almost certain he existed.
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 Again with the "credible historians" thing. I have heard positive evidence for Jesus as negative evidence, so my point stands, it is in dispute. Whatever the majority thinks doesn't matter here, you still need to prove conclusively that Jesus existed if you want to claim victory.
You're credentials are also irrelevant to this discussion. I could say I have studied history and am certain he did not exist. Would you believe me?
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX Just curious, what evidence do think disputes Jesus' existence? One piece of evidence overlooked by many who have not studied the bibles history is the life of St. Peter. We know from numerous, independent, contemporary accounts, that Peter died upside down on a cross because he did not consider himself worthy the same death as Jesus. Peter was an eyewitness to Jesus. Why would he give up his life in such a gruesome, painful manner, over someone he knew did not exist?
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 Evidence against:
-No contemporary writings about him (no eyewitness): Peter, as you should know, was not an eyewitness. There wasn't, neither independent accounts nor contemporary, that' says a lot. Earliest writings about Jesus, came about 20-40 years after Jesus death.
-Dependence for Mark of the other gospels.
-The Gospel of Mark shows clear signs of being written as an allegorical fiction
And it goes on...
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX "Peter, as you should know, was not an eyewitness" Are you for real?
"20-40 years after Jesus death" The standard for writing a roman emperors biography was 400 years after their death, 20-40 years after means there would have been eyewitnesses still alive to disprove marks gospels claim. Notice how no one had ever written to deny Jesus' existence, not even the Jews, and the gospels don't exactly shine a good light on them.
"Dependence for Mark" The fact that there even is a gospel
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 Yes, I am. Tell do you think the authors of the gospels were actually the disciples?
"20-40 years after means there would have been eyewitnesses still alive to disprove marks gospels claim."--Also time for the story to get tampered with, you know it was all word of mouth in those times.
"Notice how no one had ever written to deny Jesus' existence, not even the Jews, and the gospels don't exactly shine a good light on them."--No one wrote about him! (except for the gospels)
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX "No one wrote about him! (except for the gospels)" Thats not at all true, we have:
Pliny the Younger (imperial Roman Legate of Bythynia, in a letter to Emperor Trajan)
Tacitus - important Roman historian
Suetonius - a Roman historian who compiled a biography of the first twelve Roman emperors in his "Life of Claudius"
Thallus and Julius Africanus in ad. 52
Mara bar Serpion, not to mention all the archaeological findings that point to Jesus' existence. Put it this way, You know how a
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 Oh, I see. You're definetely in the dark:
In short:
-Pliny the Younger: Never mentions Jesus, he does mention a "Christ"(?)
Tacitus: He is relaying information from Christians themselves, so he's mention of a Christus who was put to deah by Pontius Pilate is meaningless
Suetonius: Made from hearsay and not even writing about Jesus time. He would've been already dead.
Thallus and Africanus: Ugh, this one is wrong in so many respects, I don' what to say.
Mara bar serpon: (cont.)
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX No m8 remember iv studied these in depth, iv had to write essays on them marked by the CIE. I was giving you examples where Jesus was mentioned outside the bible, some of them are in dispute amongst scholars, take Tacticus for example, he is the best roman historian we have, obviously he writes from hearsay, but ancient history relies on hearsay. For example would you then deny Hannibal's battles with Rome, in the battle of Cannae? Nearly all the ancient historical documents are
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 I'm trying to deny your credentials, I'm merely saying that the case for the historical Jesus is not based on a solid ground. Again, Jesus was not mentioned outside of the bible.
If I would deny Hannibal's battles? I don't know, but at least I'd hold a little skepticism about it. I bet no one would try to defend any other historical figure as ardently as they do with Jesus, so I guess there would so many people denying contrary evidence.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@sned10000 ...only mentions a "wise king" not to say that his testomony is not a firsthand one.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX The best evidence i would give is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ.(We know this is true becuase it is well documented by numerous roman historians during emperor Neros' reign which began in 54 A.D, so most Christians back then were eyewitnesses. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.
sned10000 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sned10000 "People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie."--This sums it all up. The only have to believe it's true, nothing more.
Eyewitness to what, I would ask, and where are their testimonies? Also why no historian of the time wrote about this "famous" miracle-doer? A lot is laking for this character.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sned10000 Whats the best evidence you can give against the existence of Jesus?
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 /"Dependence for Mark" The fact that there even is a gospel/ --Huh? What do you mean?
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@sned10000 Alvar Ellegård, Richard Carrier, Niels Peter Lemche, David Fitzgerald, Dennis Mcdonald, Robert M. Price... Some historians, scholars, philosohers and Theologians who don't accept the historical Jesus, or at least debate the consensus and explore other alternatives. So, are you still going to deny the fact that the historicity of Jesus is debated.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX My explanation to this would be that Jesus existed. It fits ALL the evidence, so now you have to prove the theory is false, conspiracies (such as saying the stories were tampered with) are not strong enough to break a theory down, especially not the theory that the historical Jesus actually existed.
sned10000 10 months ago
@DaGavinX composed from hearsay; remember they didn't have cameras etc back then. Also the bible is not just one source; it is a wealth of sources compiled together. We know for a historical fact, that Christians existed around the time of Jesus' death. If a person never existed, why on earth would people start calling themselves Christians? I just can't buy your theory that he never existed. When you look at all the evidence, the most plausible, logical, answer would be Jesus existed.
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 Wealth of sources compiled together? So now the bible is biblical and non-biblical source? That sounds easy. Yes there were Christians, so? Like I said before: incredulity is not a basis for historicity.
"I just can't buy your theory that he never existed. When you look at all the evidence, the most plausible, logical, answer would be Jesus existed."--Well, I don't know what to say to this. I've seen the evidence as well and Jesus doesn't sound nor plausible nor logical.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX "biblical and non-biblical source" No idea what your talking about. The bible is a collection of documents written about Chrstianity.
"incredulity is not a basis for historicity" Again, what are you talking about. incredulous is to express belief. Your statement makes no sense. We know there were many Christians around the time of Jesus' death; these people will all have been Jews. So we know "something" must have happened in their lives. Not only did they completely change their
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 /"biblical and non-biblical source" No idea what your talking about. The bible is a collection of documents written about Chrstianity./Yeah... the bible is all about Christianity, get real.
"Again, what are you talking about. incredulous is to express belief." Huh? Do I have to give you the definition of incredulity? Okay, then: "a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real ".
And you presupose that something happening in the lives of Jews...
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@sned10000 was Jesus, not very honest way to investigate anything.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX religious beliefs, but they were willing to die for whatever it was they saw. So how else could you explain why these Jews suddenly changed? Something most defiantly happened, what would you say created Christianity?
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 What started Christianity? Good question. Other religions show that you only need a myth and people willing to believe it.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX "Other religions show that you only need a myth and people willing to believe it." But do people Change from a religion they were brought up in? and then give their life up over what they saw?
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 Yes, they do. Human nature is quite fascinating.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX Can you give an example? in case you were thinking, all the Islamic suicide bombers were brainwashed from birth.
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 Well, actually not all of them were indoctrinated from birth. Some were educated people with potential future, what happened is that they were made to believe that there are rewards in the afterlife waiting for them for their matyrdom, among other reasons. So yes, suicide bombers are an example of this, some of them at least.
The point is, there are converts to other religions, so it happens.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX True there were 1 or 2 who were not muslim from birth. But none of them changed from one religion to another.The Jews who were reported to have met Jesus were born and raised Jewish, and we know, religious beliefs back then were taken very seriously. "does not fit the evidence" where does it not fit?
Science theories go by the same standards, in the sense that a better theory has to replace an existing theory.
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 Whatever, the point is people can and do change their minds even if this could problematic to them and could get them killed.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX Yes people do change their minds. But no one has ever changed from a religion they were brought up in and then subsequently died *peacfully* for their new belief (except for Christians). when an atheist converts, thats different. An atheist has no religious belief in the first place. Anyways, Dawkins was wrong for saying it was in dispute amongst historians, its not. There are also people who claim the holocaust never happened.
sned10000 10 months ago
@DaGavinX Also note how the Christians died peacefully, suicide bombers inflict a lot of violence. The Christians were killed because they refused to partake in the roman gods festivals.
" I could disprove the existence of Jesus without positing an alternative immediately" No thats not true. this is basic history, and science for that matter. If you want to disprove a theory that already fits the evidence we do have, you would HAVE to put a more plausible theory in its place.
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 Well, Christians have inflicted violence also, so I don't see where you're going with this.
The current consensus about Jesus, does not fit the evidence! What it's needed to completely disprove would to show that it doesn't fit ANY evidence. Putting a new theory in it's place it is not part of disproving the current one, but a different effort.
in don't know why you talk about science and history. I could show that, for example evolution is false, but creating a new theory is not...
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX There really isn't a single strong argument to suggest Jesus did not exist. The theory of evolution fits the evidence, so if i were to say it was not true, i would have to give a more robust theory. The existence of Jesus does fit the evidence, how can you say it doesn't? It would explain, why Christians came about, why there are so many documents reporting Jesus, why people gave their lives relying on his existence, etc.
sned10000 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sned10000 If not strong, at least there, but what you consider them to be is irrelevant. If you were to say evolution is not true you would need to show is not consistent with the current data, coming up with a new theory could take time.
"The existence of Jesus does fit the evidence, how can you say it doesn't?" What have we been discussing the whole freaking day?!
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@sned10000 Not all the evidence and even the evidence that it's supposed to fit is not very conclusive. There's no need for a planned consppiracy for the stories to have been tampered with, it could've been involuntary. Anyways, that's just one of the reasons the historicity of Jesus is debated.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX And the thing is, if you want to disprove the theory that Jesus existed, you would have to replace it with a more plausible theory that would answer the question how Christianity started.
sned10000 10 months ago
@sned10000 Not at all, I could disprove the existence of Jesus without positing an alternative immediately, more so when the accepted consensus is so faulty. There would be a interesting investigation to find the real starter of Christianity.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX "Would you believe me" That would depend on the theory you gave. If you could provide some solid historical evidence suggesting Jesus did not exist, then yes, i would consider your claim.
sned10000 10 months ago
Haha this Michael is less smarter than Dawkins but Amaterasu than Hitchens . I even knew that disbelief in A God is a belief . And I agree so many people talk again the historic Christ yet they don't even take the time to see the evidence . Lennox is great I hope to one day debate like him for the cause of Christ
blopajmbar62 1 year ago
@blopajmbar62 It seems to me like most of the people watching these debates are Athiests who have nothing better to say than just bash on Christainty. I love Lennox he is so smart, I like Micheal Shermer too but I see that his points are very futile even though it he tries to make sense of it. got a whole bunch of haters watching and commenting lol..
samuellis 11 months ago
Lennox should be forced to watch "Dark Star" until he understands Phenomenology...
dzntms144 1 year ago
He's right, you can't ignore evidence.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
coolwhip...
Hutspotpwns 1 year ago
I think its so odd how when Shermer talks about Flew "being baffled by DNA" he mentions that a majority of scientist are not so, so a majority counts. But when talking about the existence of God a majority doesn't count when a huge number of people believe in some God?
godswordsheal 1 year ago
@godswordsheal I think he said many. And also the implication was that if someone can't understand something scientific it doesn't mean others can't. It wasn't saying that because the majority do. It is like some of the freaky parts of quantum physics I can't get my head around. Doesn't stop them from making sence to those with more understanding than me. Same is true for religion. Just because I don't understand how Jesus defeated Satan by dying and yet is still in the world doesnt stop others.
Nexius8 1 year ago
Atheist's are just as guilty as Theist's in the sense that they are so sure there is no God when the fact is, no one knows for sure. No one really knows and no one will ever know in our lifetime...Just enjoy life while you can and let's all just follow the "Live and let live" rule. Let people believe or not believe and don't riducule them for their beliefs. The world would be a much better place if everyone could follow that rule. But that's just a dream of mine I guess...
buitrami 1 year ago
@buitrami A better rule "Do to others what you would have them do to you"
godswordsheal 1 year ago
@godswordsheal You're right, that is a better rule.
buitrami 1 year ago
Comment removed
OneAtheist1 1 year ago
@OneAtheist1 Certainly doesn't seem so. But you only gave me one side.
godswordsheal 1 year ago
Comment removed
kaifroland 1 year ago
@buitrami Atheists don't claim that god does not exist, they just don't believe in god - as Shermer says in this very video! Also, it is true that god can not be disproven, but the same can be said about an infinitude of silly things you can make up. (allah, thor, unicorns, astrology etc.) The reason your "live and let live" is but a dream is that the holy books make incompatible claims about the nature of morality and the afterlife.
kaifroland 1 year ago
Atheism: a thesim. Without god. It is not a belief. It is the lack of a particular belief. Just like Lennox doesn't believe in Zeus or Genesha. It is not the belief in the abscence of Zeus, it is simply the lack of a belief in a proposition. Idiot!
equsnarnd 1 year ago
Lennox tries to make people laugh every time he gets PWNED to make it seem as if the audience agrees with him but besides making a few people laugh at his absurdities he fails the argument logically.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
Atheism is obvious..and racional.
Research: The Venus Project
FranciscoKGuerreiro 1 year ago
Lennox talks about how the resurrection is evidence that jesus and god are real. He believes there is "evidence". The evidence he may want to look at is how many "resurrections" there were back then and prior as well as when it happened to show up in the "story". It is a book of stories...not a book to base your life on. If you want, pull the bad stuff out and just have a book of good moral stories. Oh...that might be a problem...god may strike us down.
djkoch65 1 year ago
Lennox brings up wotanism and tries to compare it to atheists problem with christianity. The reason atheists attack christianity is because it is pervasive and affects all aspects our daily lives...our governments, our wars, science, education or polices. It is a complete conversation ender...god did it...end of story. I haven't seen too many wotan churches or pushes for wotanism in our governmental policies, schools and/or geopolitical chess games.
djkoch65 1 year ago
shermer contradicts himself, his arguments have no substance and shallow.
kit2ng219 1 year ago
Michael Shermer is now my new favorite..love his laugh<3
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
Atheists have more faith than Christians 8-P pffft
shernajwine 1 year ago
Saying : Its absolutly true and than saying shits is chep rethorical nonsens. Is someone is usiong this shit = for me 0.
ggios1 1 year ago
We all need to accept one important truth. This is that Odin is much cooler than jesus.
funknotik 1 year ago
dawkins isnt there to defend himself
sothis45 1 year ago
Lennox' stupidity reaches near-lethal levels. Hearing him jabber makes me want to smash my head against the wall.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I know what you mean. At least he is reasonably affable.
nothingnesswithouten 1 year ago
They are only true or they're not...
And in the case of god... they're not.
Interesting to note.. who does the most talking?
Lennox.. over and over again.. he craps on and on and on....
Desperately trying to cover up the holes in his argument
( by the way.. as far as I know, Dawkins never said he wasn't interested in the resurrection.. he said " how could you possibly believe it ? " .. there's a difference )
Roper122 1 year ago
i find it embarrassing that distinguished professors like Lennox defend religion, it's an embarrassment for human intelligence
xoloxum 1 year ago
@xoloxum what is wrong with it, if some scientist do not belive in naturalism , they can talk against it and show evidence, if no of them show anything, they maybe both have the answer
dalefantom 1 year ago
Ok.. so the chance of a universe being created with a low entropy to start with (like our universe has) is about 1 part in 10 to the power of - 10 to the power of 123 - to be honest when that kinda figure is pulled out you it gives ample reasoning for theism in generall No? Why on earth is it that proffessors who defend it are desccribed as ridiculous then?
danandrew1992 1 year ago
There is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
adlerbr12 1 year ago
@adlerbr12 correction, there's no historical 'contemporary' evidence for Jesus, which puts him in the same boat as plato, socrates, alexander the great, various roman emperors throughout history, nero and plenty of other historical figures. if you deny Jesus' existence than you must deny all these other people's as well. but this would just be silly.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
"...and atheists say they just go one god further. Well that's like saying there's not much difference between marriage and celibacy, it's just one relationship less".
Well finally that's one thing Lennox has said that I agree with. I've always hated the 'one god further' argument for exactly this reason. Please, fellow atheists, never use this argument again.
sam51092 2 years ago
@sam51092 (Smart) Atheists don't necessarily use this as a reason why god doesn't exist, more to get the person they're arguing with to critically examine the reasons why they believe in God.
jonberg 1 year ago
@sam51092 Specifically, why they believe in their god over any other god.
jonberg 1 year ago
@jonberg That might work for the god of any specific religion, but not for the god hypothesis in general. Refuting the god of any specific religion doesn't begin to deal with things like the cosmological argument, design argument etc.
sam51092 1 year ago
3:40
thelionsshare100 2 years ago
Religious loons use this new tactic called " he's exactly right" as if this statement is to clarify that the religious nut job in the debate has some rationale.
MyFartsRock 2 years ago
5:45- Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers though! LOL
MyFartsRock 2 years ago
Why do Christians insist there is evidence of Jesus' resurrection outside of the Scripture? I am not saying, there isn't. I am not that familiar with history, but shouldn't the word of God be enough for Christians? What the hell?
Gaaraoftheoasis 2 years ago
"but shouldn't the word of God be enough for Christians? What the hell? "
No, it is not enough just knowing that God exists. It's a knowledge stopper, if you say God did it, then you stop thinking about how God did it. Furthermore, it isn't enough for Atheists, so in some sense we need to explain it through secular sources.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@Gaaraoftheoasis actually there are evidences of two things : that Christ was crucified and died, and that the corpse dissappeared. Every roman istorian says that. To the fact that he has risen from the dead we have the testemonies of two roman soldiers of that time that write their convinction about that. We have a lot of historical fact about many things.
nightcrawlercyp 2 years ago
@Gaaraoftheoasis Of course some can be faked, but there is no argument that christ has died on the croix and that he vanished from the grave without anyone taking him. That I hope any sain man can agree. More than that is discutable , but those are doumented facts.
nightcrawlercyp 2 years ago
Gaaraoftheoasis, in the Bible, Paul said that if Jesus was not resurrected from the grave, then the Christian faith is utterly futile. Therefore in order for me to have faith in God, I must first know whether or not he resurrected. That is why empirical evidence for Christianity is so important. If Jesus never died on the cross, there is no reason for Christians to preach the gospel because then it would just another lie.
BassP86 2 years ago
"The idea of human belief and it's distribution seems to me to a case of not feeding all the evidence into the pot".
No, it's called the fallacy ad populum. What people believe, whoever they are is irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant. It's what we can deduce from facts and ideas that is important.
lamplighteyes 2 years ago
look how fast his smile vanished at 0:42 - 0:43.
"You believe that do you?!?!"
eddie2042 2 years ago
very very funnny
VoteHarveyDent 2 years ago
Someone scared the piss out of his smug ass.
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
historical evidence, countless documents that notate the life and resurrection of christ ouside of scripture
blackheartsbirth 2 years ago
What "historical evidence"???
Stop bullshiting.
"countless documents"......XDDD
You're reffering to the "overwhelming evidence"...
raoskaos 2 years ago 8
What evidence for the resurrection? How can you prove that someone actually came back from the dead 2000 years ago?
oneearth22222 2 years ago 7
Call yourself rational? You don't even except the evidence in front of your eyes! What evidence you ask? The testimony of several ignorant men in the desert who didn't actually see the events first-hand and only thought about writing it down 50-70 years later. What more evidence do you need? New Testimony scholars all agree on their total accuracy you understand...
lamplighteyes 2 years ago
@oneearth22222 one cannot "prove" that it happened, just like you can't "prove" that Brutus killed Julius Caesar. We believe it happened because of the historical texts. because there are historical texts of Christ's resurrection, then that is what will be used in the debate. if you have proof that he didn't resurrect, then i would love to see it. otherwise, Jesus's resurrection is just as much of a fact as Julius Caesar's assassination...
pianoboypiano 11 months ago
@oneearth22222 If you had payed attention to what Lennox have said the whole debate, you wouldn't have asked that question.
TheAnbessa 10 months ago
Every time Lennox makes a statement, I imagine it being followed by Gene Wilder's line as Willy Wonka;
"Wrong, sir! Wrong!"
AnonymousDiv0 3 years ago
can we please refrain from swear words on the comments? its garbage. i think this is one reason the world is dirty because of the dirty words coming out from the mouth of those supposedly "educated".
speedster34 3 years ago
Shermer is up to his neck in it if he really thinks there are no positive implications required for atheism (assuming you have an interest intellectual fulfillment).
You must accept materialism as an outright priory. Naturalistic philosophy which is a logical application of priory materialism which if you have half a brain leads nihilism if you are capable of applying your prior philosophy to behavioral rationality.
allabasterkt 3 years ago
An infidels refutation.
"assuming you have an interest intellectual fulfillment"
Certainly i have an interest in intellectual fulfillment but not intellectual certainty which I assume your getting confused with.
"You must accept materialism as an outright priory"
I beg to differ - again referring back to your first statement - if you decide from the start you must reach the level of certainty then maybe you must accept this position, as an atheist I don't. I suspect this is why your a theist?
shallbeagain 3 years ago
"Naturalistic philosophy which is a logical application of priory materialism which if you have half a brain leads nihilism if you are capable of applying your prior philosophy to behavioral rationality."
Now your getting closer to reality - fortunately this is where my conscience encourages me to put myself in someone elses position though it is difficult at times.
And in defence of Shermer he didn't say he believes in a multiverse.
shallbeagain 3 years ago
Good lord the people who demand empirical evidence for all and still believe we live in a multiverse.
I guess bias is fine as long as you have an ideological axe to grind.
allabasterkt 3 years ago
A proposed hypothesis is not the same as a theology. And as to "...people who demand empirical evidence for ALL (my emphasis)..."; nice strawman.
deefsound 3 years ago
I think the point on Hitchens and Dawkins not taking evidence seriously is miss leading. Of course they take evidence seriously but what they do is what any scientist or sensible person does and evaluates the credibility of the evidence and its source before deciding whether to take it seriously. They don't refute the probable existence of Jesus just the validity of the miraculous claims.
Smudger21000 3 years ago
4:50 I am glad someone pulled john up on his Ad Hominem against Dawkins source especially when he then went off and did the same himself a couple of minutes later.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Atheism is a positive belief because atheisms tend to have positive beleifs? Errr no john. You smuggle something in here by equating two things. Atheism IS a nothing. Materialism IS a something. You put the two together and try to ascribe the positives of one to the other. Thats where your confusion comes from. Glad to help.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Well put. Thats what happens when really intelligent people are believers.
felandath 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So what is Mr. Shermer standing up there on the lectern for. For entertainment? Might I suggest he tries stand-up commedy!
taotaotatti 3 years ago
7 Parts down and Lennox is really starting to wear a bit thin on me.
deefsounds 3 years ago 22
He's absolutely grating. Can't he summarise whatever point he wants to make?
pr0newbie 3 years ago 2
I suppose that without the sea of rhetoric oozing out his mouth, his points would be a weaker. I mean, geez, the guy is practically preaching.
deefsounds 3 years ago 4
Lennox says he believes because of the evidence. WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE? It's entirely hearsay from 2000 years ago that all of those Jesus miracles happened. It just boggles my mind how weak his stance is, yet he says it as if it's a reasonable response to Shermer.
hughtub 3 years ago 5
Annoying isn