Outstanding! Your central point that there is no substantiation to support the existence of a god, or the alleged events that are contained in the NT, is spot on. Continue to rely on evidence to form your opinions and reject all attempts by these willfully ignorant refried jesus wheezers to seduce you into accepting their crazy-as-a-shithouse-rat fantasies as a matter of faith. They are just trying to perpetuate their lies.
Again, well done and keep up the good work! Two thumbs, way up!
2:14 But Jesus said lean not unto your own understanding, I mean dude you don't even understand what your saying cmon lol. Do you have to see Jesus be ressurected from your naked sinful eyes, nope it's not going to happen buddy. But real followers of Jesus know he was ressurected from the spiritual eyes. Knowing by faith and believe he did it, because if he had not did it you wouldnt be making these crappy videos today, You wouldnt be in exstince.
Yes nigga you are wrong for saying demons are not real, hell there falling ANGELSSS. Which means they use to be ANGELSSSS. You want ppl to feel the way you do. Well guess what theses ppl are not going to burn for you, your gonna deal with what you feel with christ alone when you be judged. You dont wanna except Jesus than that's your purogative, it seems to me your acting in behalf of satan, as if you want ppl to go to hell with you, or to believe in your personal beliefs.
@kingspider1000 uhh... fossil records first off. And he is claiming that since in modern day there are NO accounts of resurrection taking place, why would it be logical to make an exception 2000 years ago?
@kingspider1000 These are two entirely diffrent arguments. My statement is that a fossil that is in the specific alignment to provide undeniable evidence that it is, indeed, a t-rex can't be refuted. However details of the physical world being evidence that there is a God? This doesn't provide any evidence of the existence. Now if you find the skeletal remains of a God make sure I'm the first to know.
u beolieve in a t rex cuz some guys in white suits tell u they existed, and they arent sure of it themselves. you smply give them the benefit of the doubt, that is all u do. this means u entertain the idea of a t rex, ur open to the possibility.
why cant u be open to the possibility that GOD created u and eveyrthing ? u have proof of this, there is design all around u.
the point im making is, why do u give the benefit of the doubt to some ppl that think for you, instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to your own observation ?
it is more than apparent that GOD created all, just by looking at the creation, but why cant u give benefit of the doubt to this ?
@kingspider1000 I can almost convolute my logic to see what you're saying, ALMOST. The important detail is PHYSICAL evidence in this argument. No I have never seen a dinosaur, nor have I seen Abraham Lincoln, but I have unquestionable evidence of their existence. Go to any Jurassic Museum and see the physical evidence for yourself. Go to the Oak Ridge Cemetery and I "assure" you that you'll see evidence of his existence.
so if physical evidence is all u need, will u believe it if i make a plastic construction of an 'amphibian man' and put it in a museum, even if such a thing has never been seen or proven ? you will, wont you ?
going to cemetries and museums wont solv anyhitng, im asking u, how can u believe in things which uve never seen ?
@kingspider1000 And you jump to the conclusion that god created design, therefore, design is evidence of god. Circular reasoning my friend. This is not an original argument, but look at snowflakes. They are a beautiful creation not by god but by the natural occurances of nature.
who set the natural elements in such a way that snowflakes form with such precise geometry ? im sure the composition of the properties couldve been set differently , but why in such a way so as to produce snowflakes?
this is a sign of GOD. and this sign is visible to the rational individual.
@kingspider1000 Why is it "who"?! I can see that this argument has a hit a divine wall. I hope someday you can learn to open your mind up a little more than merely giving the easy answer, god did it. I hope life treats you and your "rationality" well.
Nope, but we can see the bones. No one is claiming to have leprechaun bones are they? Bible also says that the dead saints came out of their graves and walked the streets and were seen by many in the book of Matthew. No record of this in all of history, not from any Jews, not from any of the Romans who were occupying the city. NO NONE! Nor did they witness this supposed group of over 500 listening to the risen Jesus talk to them as Paul says in 1 Cort 1:15. not real.
haha Dude I smiled so much just watching this video.
I came across this randomly and I wasn't aware of the background surrounding this video concerning you and "veritas48." I have had my share of debates with christians, however, and I was able discern what his comments were to you to invoke this response. I understand the frustration you feel. It is hard arguing with illogical, ignorant people.
"and then when they die I'm like 'AH HERE I AM! YOU SHOULD'VE BELIEVED!'"
I think im getting your point , bt you need to understand that God cant completely reveal himself to this world , beacause this is a test , and that test would be completely destroyed if God would reveal himself completely.
However , this life would be to dark if God didnt send some signs and knowledge about himself. And he is doing that today.
Get interested about Međugorje , because Mary said God will put a perminent SIGN FOR UNBELIEVERS in Međugorje. Sign will be undestructable , and will stay there forever. And everybody
will know its from God , Mary said that even after that many people wont convert.
there are MIRACLES EVEN TODAY , that are related with Jesus. Jesus said there will be people who wil do even bigger miracles then him in his name.
Watch on youtube ZLATKO SUDAC 10 COMANDMENTS. He is a priest and HAS A CROSS ON HIS HEAD , and there is another video where Zlatko Sudac makes holy communion flyes
also connected to my other comment he picked the cross up and stabed the old guy in the heart the preatue and killed him and the boy started floating in the air and he was laying on his bed in a hospital yes this is proven it was on the news it was in the news papers yes their are demons and yes their are angles and dont fucking call them mythical creatures cuz they arent u cant see them but it is prooven ingods hand writeing called the bible theiris a heaven and hell no proof or evede butey do
i clearly unstand what you are saying i do agree with a little but some i dont god angles hell and demons do igsist on this earth no they do not live on earth no but they can get on earth i have saw a angle before and no it wasent like a flapingwings angle it was a light buble thing telling me god was here with me yes their is a god and yes their is a devel how about this in st. louis missouri their was a boy that had a demon inside him aold guy tryed to help him but he pickedcross up stabed him
Proverbs 3:5-7 (New International Version) 5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. [a]
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil.
Atheist here: I stopped watching half-way because this guys thinks too slow when speaking....no offense. However I have studied religion intensely and the concept o resurrection used doesn't necessarily mean coming back to Earth but rather to the after life, and life goes on from-your resurrected from the dead because you never do die. Anyway this concept is also used metaphorically in religious scriptures, as well as philosophy, and literature. It's not a concept of broad empirical proofing.
Ah, Christian philosophy: The art of feigning ontological superiority from a base of ideas that bear no coherent concept whatsoever, and then pretending as though the disinterested non-believer bears a burden of proof.
It's also the art of cleverly (and desperately) redefining the non-believer's worldview ahead of the actual argument so that it'll be easy to knock down.
I've never had a Christian not do this. They ALWAYS try to tell me what my belief structure is, and it's always comical.
Besides, the difference between someone who claims to commune with Jesus and a physicist that claims to have evidence for a black hole is that, theoretically, the physicist's claim can be independently verified. The claim of Jesus, however, cannot be verified or disproven.
Christians always like that last part, because it's always nice to say that you can't disprove Jesus, but I also submit that the same could be said for pixies and fairies. Not exactly good company for Jesus.
You know what? I'm tired of Christians always going to the "brain in the jar" argument. If that's the best they got, then clearly they have nothing. In order to justify a belief, they have to marginalize EVERTHING we experience so that we can't say what is real, even if we perceived it with our senses? That is NOT an argument!
The fact is, we trust our senses because we HAVE to. And to equate that with faith is asinine. Don't even let Christians get away with this nonsense.
Perceptions can't always be proven and you don't look for proof when you feel it is cold outside. Likewise with the millions of people who have had spiritual experiences. Historical events both mundane and supernatural can't be proven by the scientific method but it is still wrong to assume they are false, as this video does.
1. I should have said more people claim to have had supernatural experiences than not.
2. If I said it was true because people believe it you would be right.
While perceptions are not perfect they certainly are evidence. What bothers me about this video is that it is acting as if they are not. If one person sees something it is a fluke but more people have had spiritual experiences than have not. I would say at the very least an honest atheist should talk about spiritual experiences as a 'phenomia'.
Science is just a way to understand and seek knowlege it is neither 100% reliable (it does not claim to be) nor has it disproved God.
Well, since all things are in peoples minds and subject to perception I would say millions of supernatural claims a year should not be casually thrown out because of preconceived notions that supernatural things don't happen.
People dying for saying they have seen something is very strong evidence for them believing in what they claim to have seen.
You claim to have seen and felt snow, physicists claim to have evidence of black holes and the followers of Jesus claim to have seen him rise from the dead. All of these things are things that I must depend on the testimony of other people for.
Supernatural claims may only be in people's minds but so is the perception of color.
Just because you say something is ridiculous does not mean that you can just disregard what people say because you say it is ridiculous.
If people had died for saying they had seen Superman and if millions of people had said they had been effected by him than I would say there was some evidence for it.
I have not seen a resurrection but I have not seen a black hole either, I haven't even seen snow. That does not make these things less real.
When you say that nobody has ever observed a resurrection, you get all kinds of nuts saying that resurrections do happen. So then you have to specify that there needs to be medical tests showing that the person was really and truly brain-dead.
And if somebody makes claims of miraculously regrowing a leg, you have to tell them that 2 millimeters of bone growth does not count as regrowing a leg.
I need to comment on your ending... There are such things as lepricons, put a midget in a green suit and top hat and there you go lol. XD... sry, had to put that joke in there :P
no one has seen anyone resurrect from the dead? Then why is there even Christianity in existence? If he hadn't, Christianity would NOT have existed today.
Also, I have seen angels before, real ones, whom also effect the ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM. Scientific evidence is in magnetics. If you want scientific evidence, it's within the same range of evidence for ghosts and other entities which interact within and without matter.
In your own world have you ever seen a star form? No? but in the real world not just one star has formed, tons of them have, normal ones, white ones,blue ones, yellow ones
Funny, that guy veritas48 or whatever really got disciplined in this video, haha. However Cristofer7 you should not be so quick to dismiss things that you can not see yeah, you can not see oxygen but you breath it brudda, your perceptions are narrow brudda, i think you need christianity in your life!!
Most religious people are epistemological relativists, at least with regards to their particular religious beliefs. I find epistemological relativism to be a form of nihilism, that is the if we follow the reasoning to its logical conclusion.
I am not an epistemological nihilist/relativist.
Find there is overwhelming evidence supporting the assertion that reality informs consciousness with knowledge and perhaps to a limited degree rational thought can arrive at knowledge.
Obviously you fail to see the point, a claim about reality should be able to be empirically confirmed, if such claims can not be confirmed then it is not likely that the claims are accurate with regards to reality.
To say angles are real means that even if no body was around to witness angles they would still have substance that interacts with reality. If angles do not interact with reality then in what sense are they real?
I think you misunderstand a metaphysical claim with regards to logic.
Such claims rest on empirical observation and thus are only probable in accuracy with regards to ultimate reality. The notion that "god can be proved by logic" is naive.
First the term god has to be defined, and further metaphysical claims must be supported by empirical observable evidence.
how don't you get this. you saying you're a man is different from claiming the impossibility of something. to say that something never happened ever ever ever, you need to know ALL HISTORY and EVERYONE'S EXPERIENCE. to know if you're a man, you just need to know your experience. your arguments seem to be built more on insult than logic. Why do we study history? to learn things that our present experiences won't teach us! you still haven't answered the question in bold above!
i don't believe you're a monster with 20 horns because you have not provided any proof. and let me guess, that's the reason you don't believe in the resurrection? well that's an uninformed statement because there's a lot of evidence. I will not discuss the proof because that's a waist of time and there are tons of resources on it.
actually "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE KORAN" doesn't carry the same weight as "NOBODY no1 has ever been risen." one is an opinion and one is a statement of fact. to make that statement of fact with authority, you must be omniscient and omnipresent. there are actual reasons i don't believe the koran, but that's not the point of this. this is the point: IS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR DENYING THE RESURRECTION? No, personal experience is limited.
Your first 3 1/2 lines are valid, so i'll have to think about this more. But this isn't the issue. the issue is whether you can show that there has never been a ressurection by one's own experience. the answer is simply "no." "Nobody has ever seen a ressurection"-have you talked to everyone who has ever existed? have you experienced a 1st person view of everyone's life? the phase "NOBODY no1 has ever been risen" carries the assumption that you're omniscient and omnipresent.
i don't believe the koran because of alot of things. for one, there is no evidence outside of the koran (that i know) that the stuff in it took place. second, it's not like early Muslims really died for their religion (they did die, but... you'll see what i mean); they spread their religion thru death and war, believing if they died in war they would go right to heaven and have sex for eternity. I doubt Islam would have lasted if they didn't kill anyone who opposed them.
also, if he is using his own life's experience to make a conclusion, then that's fine. just don't assume those conclusions apply to those who's experience aren't the same as his, such as everyone but him.
Since he's never seen angels, God, ect., then nobody has ever seen them? and the reason nobody has ever seen them is because they don't exist? and the reason nobody has seen them is because they don't exist? i know he didn't say it like that, but that's the gist. it's circular.
i'm not even going to answer this one because this starts a new conversation about how God works. and along with that more stupid analogies and bad logic on your part, and more wasted time on mine.
Just focus on the question IS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR DENYING THE RESURRECTION? Or is personal experience a reasonable basis for denying any event in history?
creationist777: You know why people don't buy your silly assertions on the resurrection? Because you really don't have evidence outside of the bible. No, nothing. Sorry.
On the other hand, we can't say it did NOT happen, just like we can't say invisible unicorns, Thor, superfast supermen etc. are non-existent.
This tiny fraction of a possibility is what you latch on to. We don't, because we just haven't got enough proof. And we can see what's going on from outside of your believer's box.
have you ever read Case for Christ? if you read that your response would be more informed. let me guess though, he's a christian so he's biased and wrong from the start? I HAVE READ UP ON THIS TOPIC! DON'T EVER SAY THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT TRUE. stop wasting my time with your ignorance
The Gospel of Mark is your oldest source wtitten 40 years after the event. You don't have one single eye witness to the event. You have STORIES. You are confused what evidence is.
You have as much evidence as muslims have for Allah, hindus have for their gods, vikings had for theirs... all ready to die for them.
No matter how carefully you scrutinize witness accounts in some rotting cave scrolls, they won't hold water unless you have outside verification and/or solid, objective evidence.
Conclusion: you have only scripture and possibly some subjective supernatural experiences to justify your beliefs. But then again, if you had valid proof you wouldn't need faith.
When I said a "creator-God," I implied the Judeo-Christian God. The point is, if there is a solitary, omnipotent God who created and sustains all things the way the Bible says, miracles would be natural and expected, albeit infrequent.
As far as miracles,
I gave classic Christian definition already:
"A less common kind of God's activity in which he arouses people's awe and wonder and bears witness to himself."
I assert: I don't want to examine my own non-material presuppositions, because I would not be able to just write off other people's non-material beliefs.
I assert: I sound a lot like a religious fanatic who is unwilling to honestly examine my own viewpoint in the light of reasoned critiques.
I assert: The material world is all there is, because that's all I can see. In fact, I am not exactly sure about yesterday, because I cannot see it right now, no one can. Has anyone ever seen yesterday?
I assert: I cannot prove my assertions because they rely on assumptions that not material and which neither I nor anyone else can observe, measure, or touch.
I assert: There is no such thing as love at least as any more than a few hormones going off in someone's body.
I assert: There is no such thing as wrong or right, I mean I've never seen a moral, no one has!! What is a moral anyway?
I assert: It is ridiculous to believe in minds or consciousness. It's all just brains and brains are just molecules moving electrical signals around. I've never seen a mind, no one has so they must not exist.
Good video. I like Veritas a lot, and it really interests me that he's smart enough to put forth methodological arguements, yet he still can't see he's making a huge leap of faith that many people are pre-conditioned to make (but that doesn't make it any less of a leap).
Um, you say in your video "Who's seen or ressurected somebody" lately. But I ask you, if someone HAD seen or done that, would you honestly believe them?
I don't think you would, I think even if you saw it with your own eyes, you would discard it as some sort of fluke, like the person wasn't really dead, or that there was still enough energy going through the brain to bring them back.
Lets face it, it would be an incredible experience that is highly unbelievable even for those who see it.
"The statement "Because miracles don't happen!" is a valid answer."
Not in Cristofer's argument the way that I outlined it. Take another look; it's a circle.
As far as the supernatural:
We would need infallible knowledge of natural laws to claim that they exclude all possibility of unique events such as miracles, which we do not have. So, the natural-ness of miracles is a non-issue; they could be natural.
If a creator-God exists, miracles would be not only natural but expected.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but how is it that the burden of "disproving the resurrection" lies on Cristofer? Isn't that laying the burden of proving a negative on him, when in fact it is YOU who should be offering evidence that SUPPORTS the resurrection?
That aside, I think what he offered has a lot of merit. We've never seen ANYONE rise from death, so why should anyone believe Jesus did it? Most likely, the story got exagerated and embellished (Occam's razor).
First century Judea was lousy with apocalyptic cults. You couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting 2 or 3 fake prophets doing parlor tricks.
Why didn't Jesus do or say something unique? He could have said: The sun is a star. Or, part of the air you breathe is carried by your blood and this keeps you alive. Or, whales and dolphins are not fish, they breathe air like you and me.
But he did not. All we have is hearsay stories of cheap magic tricks.
You know you spend too much time on youtube when the verification codes start repeating themselves... Your videos are popular because you ar teh 1337 pwnzor.
cristofer7, I've already said it, but it just has to be said once again. the level of stupidity displayed by you in this video, and your subscribers in the comment section of this video is offensive. I am offended that you and all these other people are so stupid.
migkillertwo: Logic, reasoning, intellectual honesty and common sense offends you. And you're obviously a christian. How come I'm not surprised!
I have practically nothing in common with cristofer7, I don't know his backgrounds or motives but I still agree with him. How is this possible? Because what he says 1) is based on reality 2) is consistent 3) actually makes sense. How is that stupid?
It is common sense to ask for some evidence before accepting a claim to be even plausible.
If you want to believe without a good reason then fine: that is called faith. Just don't try to present it as a truth. Regardless of what they say, believers will never have any real evidence in support of their claims.
We don't need to provide evidence/proof for our position (calling bullshit), we just evaluate and dismiss their illogical rationalizations and endless testimonies - using common sense.
I think the both of us wish that was not an appeal to authority. you have not actually provided an argument against the validity of the resurrection arguments posed by Veritas. nor has cristofer, which is why I cannot hold myself back from insulting him.
Let's put it a little more simply. Almost every time Jesus performed a miracle his own apostles acted like it was big surprise. you would think after seeing him do it enough times they would cease to be amazed even though the evidence was right their before their very eyes. Even doubting Thomas had to physically put his hand into Jesus's wounds to believe it happened.
You want us without having the benefit of witnessing a miracle to believe in something the apostles had trouble believing.
It's only evidence if you believe in the book. If you don't believe in the book it doesn't count as evidence. 6000 years, a talking snake, Noah's Ark, the Tower of Babel, we can go on forever.
You don't believe Mohhamed flew into heaven on a winged horse do you? Same type of story different book.
If we've never seen a miracle you can't expect us to believe they exist.
Your evidence is based on evidence we don't believe in. How do you not understand that?
justintempler, the new testament is NOT ONE BOOK.
but I am surprised that you would do something so stupid as bring up the old testament in a discussion of the reliability of the NT claims about the resurrection.
Jesus based his faith on the law in the OT, Jesus talked about Noah, Luke gives the genealogy from the OT. The NT prophesies are based on the OT. Matthew is very fond of quoting them.
So yes the OT ha a direct bearing on the NT. Jesus and the Father are one GOD? So the GOD of the OT and Jesus are one in the same. The OT has EVERYTHING to do with the relibailty of the NT.
justintempler, it was common for ancients to skip generations and only document the most important figures in reconstructing geneologies. secondly, can you prove that Jesus really believed in a global flood? the hebrew strongly suggests that it was in fact a localized flood.
once again, your attack on the reliability of the N.T Documents fails, miserably so.
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Another OT refernece, do you really believe Jonas was in the whale's belly for 3 days, wa it literal? How come Christ's apostles where so surprised he rose from the dead? They been told numerous times.
Can't be a local flood becasue God promised he would never repeat the flood and the rainbow was his promise, remember? So any major flood like the Mississippi would have been a promise God broke.
And prove skipping generations was very common.
Also Matthew makes it point to say the generations are 14,14,13, then gives us 14,14,13.
Since you are resorting to name calling, instead of being intelligent. I'm done with you for now.
The waters were above the mountainsIf the Flood were local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 metres) above the mountains (Gen. 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched
The duration of the FloodNoah and company were on theArk for one year and 10 days (Gen. 7:11, 8:14)—surely an excessive amount of time for any local flood? It was more than seven months before the tops of any mountains became visible. How could they drift around in a local flood for that long without seeing any mountains?
"migkillertwo: Logic, reasoning, intellectual honesty and common sense offends you. And you're obviously a christian. How come I'm not surprised!"
I am sorry, really, I am sorry that God and society has shortchanged you and has not given you the necessary critical thinking skills to understand why cristofer's video comes fall short of presenting a cogent argument. I am deeply sorry and sympathetic that ayou are too stupid to comprehend why this is bullshit.
I am sorry jack, but I cannot bring myself to respect people who argue in a circle, and then try to justify their circular argument by calling us stupid and ignorant and accuse us of holding blind faith and anti-intellectualism.
it will be a cold day in hell before you find me giving tards like these even an ounce of respect.
mig- When Paul spoke to the philosophers in Areopagus in Acts 17 he didnt call those around him stupid when they mocked him once he mentioned the resurrection from the dead. Rather, "At that, Paul left the Council." We should be mindful to place our responses to mockery in check with Christ.
eloisecm, that really is nothing more than an ad hominem argument, and a violation of the philosophy of science, as if someone's belief runs contrary to a testable physical hypothesis. cristofer7 however is unable to comprehend why merely saying "you're wrong" isn't a valid argument.
"See Nomos, your comment single handedly destroys his entire argument but it simply doesnt matter. It doesnt matter if I say it nor if I scream it, this will be danced around, ignored or be overshadowed by assertions."
haha these fairy tale believers are saying YOU are arguing in circles hahahaha...even tho when somebody could ask a simple question and they HAVE to answer,most of the time,"god works in mysterious ways" or "you have to have faith"..lmao
NomosCharis, Veritas48: That is not circular reasoning. Cristofer7 is NOT making a claim but a response. The actual positive claim is "Miracles do happen." which is backed up by witness testimonies and NOTHING else. The existence of UFOs, aliens, ghosts, demons and so forth are on the same level with it.
Therefore "No, miracles don't happen." is a perfectly reasonable and validated response. Why? Because if you assume otherwise, we have NO reason NOT to assume that EVERY FUCKING MYTH is TRUE.
migkillertwo: Technically you're absolutely correct. Sure. I can't say so for certain.
However, you're full of dung and/or dumb: Do I need to back up every single negative claim then? Such as... there are no invisible, undetectable unicorns. Or, there is no Valhalla. No 2nd coming. Because I can't. And I won't. Because you're full of crap. See? Circular.
You clowns asking us to prove negative claims only makes you look dumb, desperate and ridiculous. We're not making positive claims, you are.
but I think you would agree with me that we should take a sort of agnostic, atheist position towards unicorns and leprachauns, because we cannot know for sure they don't exist (unless they make predictions which have been falsified). the problem is that cristofer is making a claim to knowledge of the non-existence of miracles.
I am offended that you would compare veritas, the most rational person I have ever had the privalage of encountering, to braindead gents like Venomfangx or Jezuzfreek777 (well, JF777 is okay, he seems like a nice guy, though not too well-read on the question of God. VenomFangX is just an evil little nerdling)
he can appear to be more reasonable, and most of the time is really more respectful than them, but he is still condescending and just likes to play word games i cannot appreciate this at all.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that Noah or anyone else could adequately disguise bovine feces as intellectual argument.
But that clear and glaring issue aside, simply saying that his arguments are invalid is not an adequate refutation. Simply labeling them "word games" tends to make you sound unintelligent. Any argument, no matter how profound, can be dismissed by being labeled "word games". And when it is, the fault entirely lies with the person dismissing it as such.
i don't know the fact that he believes in god maybe?
i mean come on, read some of his comments in this video, he is a condescending prick.... there is nothing to prove there, well there is but you get that from reading him, he just has plenty of flawed logic, so much that i do not know where to start.
i can only read a few of his comments here and see BS all over it.
I just had to watch this video again because it is so good! I wish I could speak with your passion, intelligence, and clarity. Bravo!
sailcat9 8 months ago
Outstanding! Your central point that there is no substantiation to support the existence of a god, or the alleged events that are contained in the NT, is spot on. Continue to rely on evidence to form your opinions and reject all attempts by these willfully ignorant refried jesus wheezers to seduce you into accepting their crazy-as-a-shithouse-rat fantasies as a matter of faith. They are just trying to perpetuate their lies.
Again, well done and keep up the good work! Two thumbs, way up!
sailcat9 8 months ago
You have a great style of delivery that I envy. Keep up the great work.
jmcgurk01 11 months ago
Comment removed
i55music 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2:14 But Jesus said lean not unto your own understanding, I mean dude you don't even understand what your saying cmon lol. Do you have to see Jesus be ressurected from your naked sinful eyes, nope it's not going to happen buddy. But real followers of Jesus know he was ressurected from the spiritual eyes. Knowing by faith and believe he did it, because if he had not did it you wouldnt be making these crappy videos today, You wouldnt be in exstince.
i55music 1 year ago
Comment removed
i55music 1 year ago
Yes nigga you are wrong for saying demons are not real, hell there falling ANGELSSS. Which means they use to be ANGELSSSS. You want ppl to feel the way you do. Well guess what theses ppl are not going to burn for you, your gonna deal with what you feel with christ alone when you be judged. You dont wanna except Jesus than that's your purogative, it seems to me your acting in behalf of satan, as if you want ppl to go to hell with you, or to believe in your personal beliefs.
i55music 1 year ago
do you believe that the tyrannosaurus rex existed in the past ?
if you do, then why exactly do you believ in it ?
kingspider1000 1 year ago
@kingspider1000 Haha. What the hell are you talking about?
Harrymfink 1 year ago
@Harrymfink
this guy here says since no one saw resurrection take place, so it does not take place.
so im asking him, how does he know that t rex exists if hes never personally seen one .
kingspider1000 1 year ago
@kingspider1000 uhh... fossil records first off. And he is claiming that since in modern day there are NO accounts of resurrection taking place, why would it be logical to make an exception 2000 years ago?
Harrymfink 1 year ago
@Harrymfink
so he believes in a t rex by looking at fossils. not at the live animal ,but by its possible remains.
so hes giving the benefit of the doubt to the possibility of a creature klnown as a t rex without seeing one live.
similarly, when i say that proof of GOD is the order behind everyting, and the extreme details which all thngs contain.
would it be wrong for me to suppose that ?
kingspider1000 1 year ago
@kingspider1000 These are two entirely diffrent arguments. My statement is that a fossil that is in the specific alignment to provide undeniable evidence that it is, indeed, a t-rex can't be refuted. However details of the physical world being evidence that there is a God? This doesn't provide any evidence of the existence. Now if you find the skeletal remains of a God make sure I'm the first to know.
Harrymfink 1 year ago
@Harrymfink
they are the same argument, i assre you.
u did not see a t rex, netihr did you see 'GOD.'
u beolieve in a t rex cuz some guys in white suits tell u they existed, and they arent sure of it themselves. you smply give them the benefit of the doubt, that is all u do. this means u entertain the idea of a t rex, ur open to the possibility.
why cant u be open to the possibility that GOD created u and eveyrthing ? u have proof of this, there is design all around u.
kingspider1000 1 year ago
@kingspider1000
the point im making is, why do u give the benefit of the doubt to some ppl that think for you, instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to your own observation ?
it is more than apparent that GOD created all, just by looking at the creation, but why cant u give benefit of the doubt to this ?
kingspider1000 1 year ago
@kingspider1000 I can almost convolute my logic to see what you're saying, ALMOST. The important detail is PHYSICAL evidence in this argument. No I have never seen a dinosaur, nor have I seen Abraham Lincoln, but I have unquestionable evidence of their existence. Go to any Jurassic Museum and see the physical evidence for yourself. Go to the Oak Ridge Cemetery and I "assure" you that you'll see evidence of his existence.
Harrymfink 1 year ago
@Harrymfink
so if physical evidence is all u need, will u believe it if i make a plastic construction of an 'amphibian man' and put it in a museum, even if such a thing has never been seen or proven ? you will, wont you ?
going to cemetries and museums wont solv anyhitng, im asking u, how can u believe in things which uve never seen ?
kingspider1000 1 year ago
@kingspider1000 And you jump to the conclusion that god created design, therefore, design is evidence of god. Circular reasoning my friend. This is not an original argument, but look at snowflakes. They are a beautiful creation not by god but by the natural occurances of nature.
Harrymfink 1 year ago
@Harrymfink
who set the natural elements in such a way that snowflakes form with such precise geometry ? im sure the composition of the properties couldve been set differently , but why in such a way so as to produce snowflakes?
this is a sign of GOD. and this sign is visible to the rational individual.
kingspider1000 1 year ago
@kingspider1000 Why is it "who"?! I can see that this argument has a hit a divine wall. I hope someday you can learn to open your mind up a little more than merely giving the easy answer, god did it. I hope life treats you and your "rationality" well.
Harrymfink 1 year ago
@kingspider1000
Nope, but we can see the bones. No one is claiming to have leprechaun bones are they? Bible also says that the dead saints came out of their graves and walked the streets and were seen by many in the book of Matthew. No record of this in all of history, not from any Jews, not from any of the Romans who were occupying the city. NO NONE! Nor did they witness this supposed group of over 500 listening to the risen Jesus talk to them as Paul says in 1 Cort 1:15. not real.
RefutingPolytheist 1 year ago
A wise man.
TheBiggestWolf 1 year ago
Comment removed
truthisabsolute1 2 years ago
haha Dude I smiled so much just watching this video.
I came across this randomly and I wasn't aware of the background surrounding this video concerning you and "veritas48." I have had my share of debates with christians, however, and I was able discern what his comments were to you to invoke this response. I understand the frustration you feel. It is hard arguing with illogical, ignorant people.
"and then when they die I'm like 'AH HERE I AM! YOU SHOULD'VE BELIEVED!'"
HAHA i laughed so hard
TheMakhai 2 years ago
I think im getting your point , bt you need to understand that God cant completely reveal himself to this world , beacause this is a test , and that test would be completely destroyed if God would reveal himself completely.
However , this life would be to dark if God didnt send some signs and knowledge about himself. And he is doing that today.
Kevinakletva 2 years ago
Get interested about Međugorje , because Mary said God will put a perminent SIGN FOR UNBELIEVERS in Međugorje. Sign will be undestructable , and will stay there forever. And everybody
will know its from God , Mary said that even after that many people wont convert.
Kevinakletva 2 years ago
there are MIRACLES EVEN TODAY , that are related with Jesus. Jesus said there will be people who wil do even bigger miracles then him in his name.
Watch on youtube ZLATKO SUDAC 10 COMANDMENTS. He is a priest and HAS A CROSS ON HIS HEAD , and there is another video where Zlatko Sudac makes holy communion flyes
Kevinakletva 2 years ago
Awesome vid!!!
Ekendil 2 years ago
also connected to my other comment he picked the cross up and stabed the old guy in the heart the preatue and killed him and the boy started floating in the air and he was laying on his bed in a hospital yes this is proven it was on the news it was in the news papers yes their are demons and yes their are angles and dont fucking call them mythical creatures cuz they arent u cant see them but it is prooven ingods hand writeing called the bible theiris a heaven and hell no proof or evede butey do
dark976 2 years ago
i clearly unstand what you are saying i do agree with a little but some i dont god angles hell and demons do igsist on this earth no they do not live on earth no but they can get on earth i have saw a angle before and no it wasent like a flapingwings angle it was a light buble thing telling me god was here with me yes their is a god and yes their is a devel how about this in st. louis missouri their was a boy that had a demon inside him aold guy tryed to help him but he pickedcross up stabed him
dark976 2 years ago
Proverbs 3:5-7 (New International Version) 5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. [a]
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil.
Broad1990 2 years ago
Atheist here: I stopped watching half-way because this guys thinks too slow when speaking....no offense. However I have studied religion intensely and the concept o resurrection used doesn't necessarily mean coming back to Earth but rather to the after life, and life goes on from-your resurrected from the dead because you never do die. Anyway this concept is also used metaphorically in religious scriptures, as well as philosophy, and literature. It's not a concept of broad empirical proofing.
TomCat2800 3 years ago
you have nothing to say
cybergift56 3 years ago
people don't.
god does ;)
ashleyguidera 3 years ago
simply put - the burden of proof is on the claimant..
Philip0209 3 years ago
Here's an assertion for you: v48 once commented that I "have no soul." I asked him where this doctrine could be found... no answer. wtf???
vantraveler 3 years ago
Ah, Christian philosophy: The art of feigning ontological superiority from a base of ideas that bear no coherent concept whatsoever, and then pretending as though the disinterested non-believer bears a burden of proof.
It's also the art of cleverly (and desperately) redefining the non-believer's worldview ahead of the actual argument so that it'll be easy to knock down.
I've never had a Christian not do this. They ALWAYS try to tell me what my belief structure is, and it's always comical.
Neilsama 3 years ago
ha ha ha your funny.
ljgorman 3 years ago
Besides, the difference between someone who claims to commune with Jesus and a physicist that claims to have evidence for a black hole is that, theoretically, the physicist's claim can be independently verified. The claim of Jesus, however, cannot be verified or disproven.
Christians always like that last part, because it's always nice to say that you can't disprove Jesus, but I also submit that the same could be said for pixies and fairies. Not exactly good company for Jesus.
Neilsama 3 years ago
You know what? I'm tired of Christians always going to the "brain in the jar" argument. If that's the best they got, then clearly they have nothing. In order to justify a belief, they have to marginalize EVERTHING we experience so that we can't say what is real, even if we perceived it with our senses? That is NOT an argument!
The fact is, we trust our senses because we HAVE to. And to equate that with faith is asinine. Don't even let Christians get away with this nonsense.
Neilsama 3 years ago
I enjoy speaking with you as well.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
Perceptions can't always be proven and you don't look for proof when you feel it is cold outside. Likewise with the millions of people who have had spiritual experiences. Historical events both mundane and supernatural can't be proven by the scientific method but it is still wrong to assume they are false, as this video does.
1. I should have said more people claim to have had supernatural experiences than not.
2. If I said it was true because people believe it you would be right.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
While perceptions are not perfect they certainly are evidence. What bothers me about this video is that it is acting as if they are not. If one person sees something it is a fluke but more people have had spiritual experiences than have not. I would say at the very least an honest atheist should talk about spiritual experiences as a 'phenomia'.
Science is just a way to understand and seek knowlege it is neither 100% reliable (it does not claim to be) nor has it disproved God.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
Well, since all things are in peoples minds and subject to perception I would say millions of supernatural claims a year should not be casually thrown out because of preconceived notions that supernatural things don't happen.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
People dying for saying they have seen something is very strong evidence for them believing in what they claim to have seen.
You claim to have seen and felt snow, physicists claim to have evidence of black holes and the followers of Jesus claim to have seen him rise from the dead. All of these things are things that I must depend on the testimony of other people for.
Supernatural claims may only be in people's minds but so is the perception of color.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
Just because you say something is ridiculous does not mean that you can just disregard what people say because you say it is ridiculous.
If people had died for saying they had seen Superman and if millions of people had said they had been effected by him than I would say there was some evidence for it.
I have not seen a resurrection but I have not seen a black hole either, I haven't even seen snow. That does not make these things less real.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
When you say that nobody has ever observed a resurrection, you get all kinds of nuts saying that resurrections do happen. So then you have to specify that there needs to be medical tests showing that the person was really and truly brain-dead.
And if somebody makes claims of miraculously regrowing a leg, you have to tell them that 2 millimeters of bone growth does not count as regrowing a leg.
Heathenfidel 3 years ago
I need to comment on your ending... There are such things as lepricons, put a midget in a green suit and top hat and there you go lol. XD... sry, had to put that joke in there :P
RMBVP 3 years ago
no one has seen anyone resurrect from the dead? Then why is there even Christianity in existence? If he hadn't, Christianity would NOT have existed today.
Also, I have seen angels before, real ones, whom also effect the ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM. Scientific evidence is in magnetics. If you want scientific evidence, it's within the same range of evidence for ghosts and other entities which interact within and without matter.
RMBVP 3 years ago
If nobody had ever seen Prometheus getting his liver eaten by the eagle, Greek polytheism would never have existed.
I have some really good photographs of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. And I'll show them to you right after you show me some angel pictures. :-)
Heathenfidel 3 years ago
In your own world have you ever seen a star form? No? but in the real world not just one star has formed, tons of them have, normal ones, white ones,blue ones, yellow ones
But by you logic they never did
simsimaz2 3 years ago
Funny, that guy veritas48 or whatever really got disciplined in this video, haha. However Cristofer7 you should not be so quick to dismiss things that you can not see yeah, you can not see oxygen but you breath it brudda, your perceptions are narrow brudda, i think you need christianity in your life!!
HIGHERMODALITIES 3 years ago
Thanks to science we know what oxygen is yet we can't see it. However, nothing has been found relating religion.
Lacktardo 3 years ago
"Ahh, here I am! You should've believed!"
That was hilarious.
HexDemon666 3 years ago
Nobody has seen a resurrection? Ah, so you have known every single person that has ever lived?
Neat.
girzwald3 3 years ago
What a pathetic argument. I hate you girzwald
slawrence89 3 years ago
Nice assertion. You are a fag.
girzwald3 3 years ago
Most religious people are epistemological relativists, at least with regards to their particular religious beliefs. I find epistemological relativism to be a form of nihilism, that is the if we follow the reasoning to its logical conclusion.
I am not an epistemological nihilist/relativist.
Find there is overwhelming evidence supporting the assertion that reality informs consciousness with knowledge and perhaps to a limited degree rational thought can arrive at knowledge.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Obviously you fail to see the point, a claim about reality should be able to be empirically confirmed, if such claims can not be confirmed then it is not likely that the claims are accurate with regards to reality.
To say angles are real means that even if no body was around to witness angles they would still have substance that interacts with reality. If angles do not interact with reality then in what sense are they real?
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Not to be a pest but...what about flatline patients that have been revived?
Could be considered a form of resurction.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Logically God can be proved but angels and demons cannot be proved with logic but there are other ways.
OblivionMon 3 years ago
I think you misunderstand a metaphysical claim with regards to logic.
Such claims rest on empirical observation and thus are only probable in accuracy with regards to ultimate reality. The notion that "god can be proved by logic" is naive.
First the term god has to be defined, and further metaphysical claims must be supported by empirical observable evidence.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
WTF is dis nigga saying and why the hell did I click on this video...
shut the fauk up bitch!
langbay2005 3 years ago
how don't you get this. you saying you're a man is different from claiming the impossibility of something. to say that something never happened ever ever ever, you need to know ALL HISTORY and EVERYONE'S EXPERIENCE. to know if you're a man, you just need to know your experience. your arguments seem to be built more on insult than logic. Why do we study history? to learn things that our present experiences won't teach us! you still haven't answered the question in bold above!
creationist777 3 years ago
i don't believe you're a monster with 20 horns because you have not provided any proof. and let me guess, that's the reason you don't believe in the resurrection? well that's an uninformed statement because there's a lot of evidence. I will not discuss the proof because that's a waist of time and there are tons of resources on it.
creationist777 3 years ago
actually "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE KORAN" doesn't carry the same weight as "NOBODY no1 has ever been risen." one is an opinion and one is a statement of fact. to make that statement of fact with authority, you must be omniscient and omnipresent. there are actual reasons i don't believe the koran, but that's not the point of this. this is the point: IS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR DENYING THE RESURRECTION? No, personal experience is limited.
i'm just trying to talk, why insult?
creationist777 3 years ago
... why don't you believe in the ressurection?
creationist777 3 years ago
Your first 3 1/2 lines are valid, so i'll have to think about this more. But this isn't the issue. the issue is whether you can show that there has never been a ressurection by one's own experience. the answer is simply "no." "Nobody has ever seen a ressurection"-have you talked to everyone who has ever existed? have you experienced a 1st person view of everyone's life? the phase "NOBODY no1 has ever been risen" carries the assumption that you're omniscient and omnipresent.
let me just ask...
creationist777 3 years ago
"no one has seen anyone resurrect from the dead"
you're assuming that Jesus never rose, and the people of his day never saw him rise; then you use that to prove that the resurrection never happened.
that is circular reasoning
creationist777 3 years ago
Wrong he's using deductive reasoning, he's using his life's experience from outside the bible.
Do you believe Muhammed flew on the magical Winged-Horse of Fire to heaven?
You're assuming it didn't happen, right? Why do you not believe that story?
justintempler 3 years ago
i don't believe the koran because of alot of things. for one, there is no evidence outside of the koran (that i know) that the stuff in it took place. second, it's not like early Muslims really died for their religion (they did die, but... you'll see what i mean); they spread their religion thru death and war, believing if they died in war they would go right to heaven and have sex for eternity. I doubt Islam would have lasted if they didn't kill anyone who opposed them.
creationist777 3 years ago
also, if he is using his own life's experience to make a conclusion, then that's fine. just don't assume those conclusions apply to those who's experience aren't the same as his, such as everyone but him.
Since he's never seen angels, God, ect., then nobody has ever seen them? and the reason nobody has ever seen them is because they don't exist? and the reason nobody has seen them is because they don't exist? i know he didn't say it like that, but that's the gist. it's circular.
creationist777 3 years ago
creationist777 ...if he is using his own life's experience to make a conclusion,..
Why do people call the police and the fire department? Why not just call on your angel.
Why do you go to hospitals and doctors? Why not just go to the local priest and have him preform an exorcism.
People that commit crimes that involve demons and angels are labeled schizophrenic. I guess we should let them go it wasn't their fault.
Angel caught on film. News at 11.
Gimme a break.
justintempler 3 years ago
i'm not even going to answer this one because this starts a new conversation about how God works. and along with that more stupid analogies and bad logic on your part, and more wasted time on mine.
Just focus on the question IS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR DENYING THE RESURRECTION? Or is personal experience a reasonable basis for denying any event in history?
creationist777 3 years ago
creationist777 "a reasonable basis for denying any event in history"
You have NOT established the resurrection as a historical event.
justintempler 3 years ago
creationist777: You know why people don't buy your silly assertions on the resurrection? Because you really don't have evidence outside of the bible. No, nothing. Sorry.
On the other hand, we can't say it did NOT happen, just like we can't say invisible unicorns, Thor, superfast supermen etc. are non-existent.
This tiny fraction of a possibility is what you latch on to. We don't, because we just haven't got enough proof. And we can see what's going on from outside of your believer's box.
clownschuhe 3 years ago
have you ever read Case for Christ? if you read that your response would be more informed. let me guess though, he's a christian so he's biased and wrong from the start? I HAVE READ UP ON THIS TOPIC! DON'T EVER SAY THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT TRUE. stop wasting my time with your ignorance
creationist777 3 years ago
The Gospel of Mark is your oldest source wtitten 40 years after the event. You don't have one single eye witness to the event. You have STORIES. You are confused what evidence is.
justintempler 3 years ago
You have as much evidence as muslims have for Allah, hindus have for their gods, vikings had for theirs... all ready to die for them.
No matter how carefully you scrutinize witness accounts in some rotting cave scrolls, they won't hold water unless you have outside verification and/or solid, objective evidence.
Conclusion: you have only scripture and possibly some subjective supernatural experiences to justify your beliefs. But then again, if you had valid proof you wouldn't need faith.
clownschuhe 3 years ago
[]kook[]
What is this statement meant to imply and how exactly is it supposed to aid discourse?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
//Faith: The acceptance of ideas or concepts for which there is no sensory proof or rational evidence.//
I would disagree with this definition but you accept lots of things without evidence. Tell me how you know your senses are accurate
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
Who did he quote when he mentioned drowning in absurdities? If someone will message me the answer that would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Paul
ptashman 3 years ago
eloisecm,
You have long comments.
:)
By way of definition:
When I said a "creator-God," I implied the Judeo-Christian God. The point is, if there is a solitary, omnipotent God who created and sustains all things the way the Bible says, miracles would be natural and expected, albeit infrequent.
As far as miracles,
I gave classic Christian definition already:
"A less common kind of God's activity in which he arouses people's awe and wonder and bears witness to himself."
NomosCharis 3 years ago
Highlight of this video: ANGELS VERITAS?! ANGELS?!
geeuho 3 years ago
I assert: I don't want to examine my own non-material presuppositions, because I would not be able to just write off other people's non-material beliefs.
I assert: I sound a lot like a religious fanatic who is unwilling to honestly examine my own viewpoint in the light of reasoned critiques.
littlemas2 3 years ago
I assert: The material world is all there is, because that's all I can see. In fact, I am not exactly sure about yesterday, because I cannot see it right now, no one can. Has anyone ever seen yesterday?
I assert: I cannot prove my assertions because they rely on assumptions that not material and which neither I nor anyone else can observe, measure, or touch.
littlemas2 3 years ago
I assert: There is no such thing as love at least as any more than a few hormones going off in someone's body.
I assert: There is no such thing as wrong or right, I mean I've never seen a moral, no one has!! What is a moral anyway?
I assert: It is ridiculous to believe in minds or consciousness. It's all just brains and brains are just molecules moving electrical signals around. I've never seen a mind, no one has so they must not exist.
littlemas2 3 years ago
Good times
bubonicnate 3 years ago
Good video. I like Veritas a lot, and it really interests me that he's smart enough to put forth methodological arguements, yet he still can't see he's making a huge leap of faith that many people are pre-conditioned to make (but that doesn't make it any less of a leap).
daswann14 3 years ago
eloisecm,
"Natural=not miracles, by definition."
Whose definition? Yours? Hume's? Who has the right of definition here? Not very impressive, eloisecm.
A classic Christian definition of Miracle is this:
"A less common kind of God's activity in which he arouses people's awe and wonder and bears witness to himself."
The very word miracle comes from the Latin "miraculum," which means, "something wonderful" (not supernatural).
NomosCharis 3 years ago
re: the ressurection
Your whole argument seems to be - I just can't beleieve it.
There were witnesses.
who cares, it's just too crazy!!
4096x 3 years ago
What a silly little video.
INTJ22 3 years ago
Um, you say in your video "Who's seen or ressurected somebody" lately. But I ask you, if someone HAD seen or done that, would you honestly believe them?
I don't think you would, I think even if you saw it with your own eyes, you would discard it as some sort of fluke, like the person wasn't really dead, or that there was still enough energy going through the brain to bring them back.
Lets face it, it would be an incredible experience that is highly unbelievable even for those who see it.
damianGray 3 years ago
WAIT... Leprechauns dont exist?
So then who put the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?
thequantumflux 3 years ago
Excellent response! It is the believers that need to provide proof. So far...na da
voyzovrezon 3 years ago
Oh man I love the raw combination of amusement & frustration in this vid.
I can't be the only one guilty of watching this vid a few times..
Great work Brandon.
neuronstorm 3 years ago
"Further I would add that people have had experiences with angels and demons even today."
People see UFOs, Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, leprechauns and ghosts. Does that mean they all exist?
rowsdowersavesus 3 years ago
//People see UFOs, Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, leprechauns and ghosts. Does that mean they all exist? //
What it does mean is that you can't a priori say any of these things don't exist.
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
One of the best vids I have seen in a bit.
lulz Angels? Angels?!?
Sarahon06 3 years ago
eloisecm,
"The statement "Because miracles don't happen!" is a valid answer."
Not in Cristofer's argument the way that I outlined it. Take another look; it's a circle.
As far as the supernatural:
We would need infallible knowledge of natural laws to claim that they exclude all possibility of unique events such as miracles, which we do not have. So, the natural-ness of miracles is a non-issue; they could be natural.
If a creator-God exists, miracles would be not only natural but expected.
NomosCharis 3 years ago
Facepalm @ Veritas48
Atheist001 3 years ago
Maybe I'm missing something here, but how is it that the burden of "disproving the resurrection" lies on Cristofer? Isn't that laying the burden of proving a negative on him, when in fact it is YOU who should be offering evidence that SUPPORTS the resurrection?
That aside, I think what he offered has a lot of merit. We've never seen ANYONE rise from death, so why should anyone believe Jesus did it? Most likely, the story got exagerated and embellished (Occam's razor).
BudhagRizzo 3 years ago
First century Judea was lousy with apocalyptic cults. You couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting 2 or 3 fake prophets doing parlor tricks.
Why didn't Jesus do or say something unique? He could have said: The sun is a star. Or, part of the air you breathe is carried by your blood and this keeps you alive. Or, whales and dolphins are not fish, they breathe air like you and me.
But he did not. All we have is hearsay stories of cheap magic tricks.
UnBeguiled 3 years ago
Dude, you crack me up. I feel your pain and frustration in dealing with these creduloids.
Beliefs in gods or fairies or big foot or angels or psychic's are all intellectually bankrupt.
Don't waste your time with Veritas48. He starts his beliefs here: the bible is true.
You start with what you have experienced while he starts with what the bible says. Conversation is impossible with such a person.
He is a creduloid. He does not know how to reason properly.
UnBeguiled 3 years ago
"I feel your pain and frustration in dealing with these creduloids."
'creduloid' is a great word. Thanks for putting me onto it. It's kind of like Richard Dawkins' term 'faith-head'.. only cool.
neuronstorm 3 years ago
You know you spend too much time on youtube when the verification codes start repeating themselves... Your videos are popular because you ar teh 1337 pwnzor.
fucksatanism 3 years ago
Yes I did.
I said I could explain a case to you, but it would take 10 boxes.
Then I reffered you to the lecture which does it explain it.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Wow, you must be a real idiot to ask that again.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
cristofer7, I've already said it, but it just has to be said once again. the level of stupidity displayed by you in this video, and your subscribers in the comment section of this video is offensive. I am offended that you and all these other people are so stupid.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I'm offended by the fact that this video has a freakin' 5-star rating!
DiMagRocks 3 years ago
migkillertwo: Logic, reasoning, intellectual honesty and common sense offends you. And you're obviously a christian. How come I'm not surprised!
I have practically nothing in common with cristofer7, I don't know his backgrounds or motives but I still agree with him. How is this possible? Because what he says 1) is based on reality 2) is consistent 3) actually makes sense. How is that stupid?
clownschuhe 3 years ago
His video is based on common sense because you claim that his video is based on common sense.
Therefore, his video is based on common sense.
What a rigorous defense of his video.
DiMagRocks 3 years ago
It is common sense to ask for some evidence before accepting a claim to be even plausible.
If you want to believe without a good reason then fine: that is called faith. Just don't try to present it as a truth. Regardless of what they say, believers will never have any real evidence in support of their claims.
We don't need to provide evidence/proof for our position (calling bullshit), we just evaluate and dismiss their illogical rationalizations and endless testimonies - using common sense.
clownschuhe 3 years ago
clownschuhe, veritas, kabane, and together for peace have no reservations about providing you evidence for their position.
once again, the amount of stupidity you have displayed is offensive.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
migkillertwo "clownschuhe, veritas, kabane, and together for peace have no reservations about providing you evidence for their position."
Evidence for their position and evidence for the ressurection are two completely different things.
There are many exchristians who also are convinced the evidence isn't there. Bart Ehrman, Charles Templeton, Dan Barker, Farrell Till, Wayne Adkins.
Once you remove faith from the equation the evidence for the resurrection is lacking.
justintempler 3 years ago
I think the both of us wish that was not an appeal to authority. you have not actually provided an argument against the validity of the resurrection arguments posed by Veritas. nor has cristofer, which is why I cannot hold myself back from insulting him.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Let's put it a little more simply. Almost every time Jesus performed a miracle his own apostles acted like it was big surprise. you would think after seeing him do it enough times they would cease to be amazed even though the evidence was right their before their very eyes. Even doubting Thomas had to physically put his hand into Jesus's wounds to believe it happened.
You want us without having the benefit of witnessing a miracle to believe in something the apostles had trouble believing.
justintempler 3 years ago
You also want us to believe in a book for evidence that also gives us a genealogy in the gospel of Luke.
That genealogy goes from Adam to Jesus, 72 generations. It's on that basis the YEC came up with the age of the earth to be 6000 years old.
That's the same book we are going to base the evidence for the resurrection.
Excuse us for saying you are lacking in evidence.
justintempler 3 years ago
would you care to explain how one's belief about the age of the earth is factored in when assessing the reliability of a document?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"You want us without having the benefit of witnessing a miracle to believe in something the apostles had trouble believing."
quite simply yes. the evidence does indicate that the resurrection occured. you however have not actually addressed the evidence.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
It's only evidence if you believe in the book. If you don't believe in the book it doesn't count as evidence. 6000 years, a talking snake, Noah's Ark, the Tower of Babel, we can go on forever.
You don't believe Mohhamed flew into heaven on a winged horse do you? Same type of story different book.
If we've never seen a miracle you can't expect us to believe they exist.
Your evidence is based on evidence we don't believe in. How do you not understand that?
justintempler 3 years ago
justintempler, the new testament is NOT ONE BOOK.
but I am surprised that you would do something so stupid as bring up the old testament in a discussion of the reliability of the NT claims about the resurrection.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Jesus based his faith on the law in the OT, Jesus talked about Noah, Luke gives the genealogy from the OT. The NT prophesies are based on the OT. Matthew is very fond of quoting them.
So yes the OT ha a direct bearing on the NT. Jesus and the Father are one GOD? So the GOD of the OT and Jesus are one in the same. The OT has EVERYTHING to do with the relibailty of the NT.
justintempler 3 years ago
I can poke 100's of holes in the NT. I was a Christian up until I was 51 y/o. I'm not your average skeptic.
I'm trying to keep this on the level of why someone like Cristofer7 doesn't believe.
justintempler 3 years ago
justintempler, it was common for ancients to skip generations and only document the most important figures in reconstructing geneologies. secondly, can you prove that Jesus really believed in a global flood? the hebrew strongly suggests that it was in fact a localized flood.
once again, your attack on the reliability of the N.T Documents fails, miserably so.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Haha No global flood, skip generations, so it's only literal when you need it to be literal. How convenient.
How do we know Jesus's resurrection was literal, maybe it was just spiritual?
justintempler 3 years ago
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Another OT refernece, do you really believe Jonas was in the whale's belly for 3 days, wa it literal? How come Christ's apostles where so surprised he rose from the dead? They been told numerous times.
justintempler 3 years ago
that and the fact that 1 Corinthians 15 clearly describes a physical resurrection.
*on jonah and the whale, did it happen?* sure why not?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"Haha No global flood"
because the hebrew doesn't say so moron.
"skip generations" because it was very common moron.
"so it's only literal when you need it to be literal. How convenient."
it's only literal when it, well, is literal.
"How do we know Jesus's resurrection was literal, maybe it was just spiritual? "
because the idea of a non-bodily resurrection would have been a contradiction in terms for any 1st century jew.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Can't be a local flood becasue God promised he would never repeat the flood and the rainbow was his promise, remember? So any major flood like the Mississippi would have been a promise God broke.
And prove skipping generations was very common.
Also Matthew makes it point to say the generations are 14,14,13, then gives us 14,14,13.
Since you are resorting to name calling, instead of being intelligent. I'm done with you for now.
justintempler 3 years ago
^14,14,14 then gives us 14,14,13^
justintempler 3 years ago
The waters were above the mountainsIf the Flood were local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 metres) above the mountains (Gen. 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched
justintempler 3 years ago
The duration of the FloodNoah and company were on theArk for one year and 10 days (Gen. 7:11, 8:14)—surely an excessive amount of time for any local flood? It was more than seven months before the tops of any mountains became visible. How could they drift around in a local flood for that long without seeing any mountains?
justintempler 3 years ago
Like I said Local Flood? HaHa
Later
justintempler 3 years ago
"migkillertwo: Logic, reasoning, intellectual honesty and common sense offends you. And you're obviously a christian. How come I'm not surprised!"
I am sorry, really, I am sorry that God and society has shortchanged you and has not given you the necessary critical thinking skills to understand why cristofer's video comes fall short of presenting a cogent argument. I am deeply sorry and sympathetic that ayou are too stupid to comprehend why this is bullshit.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
mig- dude chill. telling people they are stupid is counter productive.
TogetherForPeace 3 years ago
I am sorry jack, but I cannot bring myself to respect people who argue in a circle, and then try to justify their circular argument by calling us stupid and ignorant and accuse us of holding blind faith and anti-intellectualism.
it will be a cold day in hell before you find me giving tards like these even an ounce of respect.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
mig- When Paul spoke to the philosophers in Areopagus in Acts 17 he didnt call those around him stupid when they mocked him once he mentioned the resurrection from the dead. Rather, "At that, Paul left the Council." We should be mindful to place our responses to mockery in check with Christ.
TogetherForPeace 3 years ago
the philosophers were providing arguments which Paul knocked down. Cristofer and his subs haven't even done that.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
eloisecm, that really is nothing more than an ad hominem argument, and a violation of the philosophy of science, as if someone's belief runs contrary to a testable physical hypothesis. cristofer7 however is unable to comprehend why merely saying "you're wrong" isn't a valid argument.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"cristofer7 however is unable to comprehend why merely saying "you're wrong" isn't a valid argument. "
FSM is real..you telling me I'm wrong isn't acceptable..just refute it
dilusional1 3 years ago
you still didn't elaborate...why not?if it's so obvious then it should obviously be easy to explain right?
dilusional1 3 years ago
Because it is easier for them to just tell you that you are too stupid to see it. Its the New Clothes, you know.
ShadowSandy 3 years ago
lol must be
dilusional1 3 years ago
nomoscharis did an excellent job of explaining why Crisofer's "argument" is circular.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
You disabled comments there because you are happier to invade Cristofer's comments with your fundie freak friends.
You attack Cris, then cry when his subs dont roll over and take your preaching.
ShadowSandy 3 years ago
what point?tell me how he single handedly destroys this video?
dilusional1 3 years ago
"See Nomos, your comment single handedly destroys his entire argument but it simply doesnt matter. It doesnt matter if I say it nor if I scream it, this will be danced around, ignored or be overshadowed by assertions."
Please tell me this comment is a satire?
dilusional1 3 years ago
Nope. He's serious. They honestly believe this stuff. Fundie's are funny.
I also like how they come kick sand in someone else's sand box then act persecuted. ;)
ShadowSandy 3 years ago
haha these fairy tale believers are saying YOU are arguing in circles hahahaha...even tho when somebody could ask a simple question and they HAVE to answer,most of the time,"god works in mysterious ways" or "you have to have faith"..lmao
dilusional1 3 years ago
Vertias,
This vid proved your point, bro.
NomosCharis 3 years ago
Cristofer,
You argue in a circle.
You say,
"Miracles don't happen" (no one has raised from the dead, seen angels, etc.).
How do you know that?
"Because no one ever sees them happen."
How do you know that? Many have claimed to see them happen! How, Cristofer, do you know that all of these claims are false?
You can only answer this way:
"Because miracles don't happen!"
This, my friend, is circular reasoning, and you only convince yourself.
NomosCharis 3 years ago
NomosCharis, Veritas48: That is not circular reasoning. Cristofer7 is NOT making a claim but a response. The actual positive claim is "Miracles do happen." which is backed up by witness testimonies and NOTHING else. The existence of UFOs, aliens, ghosts, demons and so forth are on the same level with it.
Therefore "No, miracles don't happen." is a perfectly reasonable and validated response. Why? Because if you assume otherwise, we have NO reason NOT to assume that EVERY FUCKING MYTH is TRUE.
clownschuhe 3 years ago
clownshuhe, the claim "miracles do not happen" IS a claim to knowledge. if you make a claim to knowledge, you have to back it up.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
migkillertwo: Technically you're absolutely correct. Sure. I can't say so for certain.
However, you're full of dung and/or dumb: Do I need to back up every single negative claim then? Such as... there are no invisible, undetectable unicorns. Or, there is no Valhalla. No 2nd coming. Because I can't. And I won't. Because you're full of crap. See? Circular.
You clowns asking us to prove negative claims only makes you look dumb, desperate and ridiculous. We're not making positive claims, you are.
clownschuhe 3 years ago
clownschuhe, you missed my point.
but I think you would agree with me that we should take a sort of agnostic, atheist position towards unicorns and leprachauns, because we cannot know for sure they don't exist (unless they make predictions which have been falsified). the problem is that cristofer is making a claim to knowledge of the non-existence of miracles.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
that veritas guy is a fucking douche
RayAtheist 3 years ago
"that veritas guy is a fucking douche "
He's one of the more reasonable Christians on here.... Veritas over VFX or Jezuzfreek anyday.
DeadMindWorking 3 years ago
I am offended that you would compare veritas, the most rational person I have ever had the privalage of encountering, to braindead gents like Venomfangx or Jezuzfreek777 (well, JF777 is okay, he seems like a nice guy, though not too well-read on the question of God. VenomFangX is just an evil little nerdling)
migkillertwo 3 years ago
he can appear to be more reasonable, and most of the time is really more respectful than them, but he is still condescending and just likes to play word games i cannot appreciate this at all.
RayAtheist 3 years ago
Those "word games" happen to be called "logical arguments". They are what remotely intelligent people use to prove their points.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
really? i listen to him at it all comes down to bullshit disguised as 'intellectual discourse'
RayAtheist 3 years ago
I find it incredibly hard to believe that Noah or anyone else could adequately disguise bovine feces as intellectual argument.
But that clear and glaring issue aside, simply saying that his arguments are invalid is not an adequate refutation. Simply labeling them "word games" tends to make you sound unintelligent. Any argument, no matter how profound, can be dismissed by being labeled "word games". And when it is, the fault entirely lies with the person dismissing it as such.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
ahh.....yes I'm going to address EVERYTHING that man has to say in this comment section, VERY smart of you sir
and that aside, any argument presented without evidence can be swooped away without evidence.
matereymate 3 years ago
[]ahh.....yes I'm going to address EVERYTHING that man has to say in this comment section, VERY smart of you sir[]
Take baby steps, then. Start with maybe addressing one or two things he says. For heaven's sake, though, do not simply assert an opposing position.
[]and that aside, any argument presented without evidence can be swooped away without evidence.[]
True. How exactly does this pertain to our current discussion?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
i don't know the fact that he believes in god maybe?
i mean come on, read some of his comments in this video, he is a condescending prick.... there is nothing to prove there, well there is but you get that from reading him, he just has plenty of flawed logic, so much that i do not know where to start.
i can only read a few of his comments here and see BS all over it.
matereymate 3 years ago