Bob, My only uploaded video so far is about you, I love your views on NT exegesis, but i had never heard this. I'm an environmental scientist, how can you say global warming is a mascarade? but i forgive you on this, you know nothing about the electromagnetic spectrum, about infrared radiation absorption, about atmospheric chemistry, about oceanic chemistry, and obviously you have not looked at the evidence.
you wont understand, because you don't want too...
Its not hard if im a God and I send my spirit through a virgin into the world that means he is an extension of GOD like my arm is and extension of ME so the Origin is God making Jesus God as well its not hard guy
are u the guy from wife swap ? that was a good show, i love how u had to experience religion. i dont know why u choose to put ur faith in nothing ...why... ? it leaves u defenseless aginst anything and everthing ! u need to open ur faith, because the same sun u are worshiping in the morning is the sun my god "lord jesus " created . smile my brother jesus loves u too !
@duncannez Faith=believing in something without good reason to. Why anyone would do this is beyond reason to me. I would rather believe in things that I have evidence for. There are no gods and if we were to worship gods, then why not Yam or Ham. They did come before yarweh and his son/preist jesus. But christians dont care about the evolutions of their gods. I would suggest reading up on the topic and drop faith and replace it something more useful knowledge!
Wow! So amazing to hear our Christian friend stonewall, attack, and ignore his very articulate opponent, and prove himself so relentlessly deaf. Thanks for the patient tolerance on the part of Team Infidel.
To all the Infidels and the ignorant people who listen to this un-Godly trash. You make a mockery of the God and Pastors and those whom God has called. Just know that God is all knowing, and all powerful. You do not get up on your own every breath you take daily is by His grace given unto you. If you cant see that or realize it you are sad.
SO you better recognize before its to late. You are pathetic!!!!
@blovedpoet Yeah, well, your god should have given us this communicationtechnology long ago. Since he didn't it seems to be Satanic. In that case, you go live up on a mountain without technology and scientific knowledge and talk to god. The best you can do in nature is about 25 years. Keep your eyes open for tooth cavity !
@blovedpoet I think threats are pathetic! If there was even a scrap of evidence to your claim then who would not be a believer? The reason people dont believe is because the claim is unsupported. You should invest more time into studying your beliefs so your argument is better than believe this or my imaginary friend will get you! Do you get it? Put up or shut it down! Evidence is needed to be a believer not warm fuzzy feelings or voices in your head. Voices in your head=mental illness...right?
"Jesus is the "risen lord" and the "light of the world" and your "risen savior" if you know who he symbolizes. He rises every morning bout 5:30. Without him, we are dead." - Jordan Maxwell
CHRISTIANS do not argue with these people... they only see things through natural eyes, they can't see it and will always see us as being crazy... we walk by faith not by sight!!! we have been born again, born into another realm that until they are born again they'll never see it...
@babyboi98 no you are stuck in one realm that you seem to be stuck in because you refuse to open your eyes to science and facts and are bewildered when ANYTHING that even remotely resembles anything that occurs in the bible and propose those coincidences as pure fact when they are not
Dear ig, please dont invite mr.Fernandes back to your show. Its a pain to listen to that endlessly repeated 'truth by nosecount' nonsense. Dr.Price (and the rest of us) deserve better.
the risen lord is easily stating that it is an astronomical myth. Mesopotamian & ancient Egypt is strong in this. In fact, this is (at best) how religion works. At worst, it is a handbook of major crimes galore. Taken this literally (like most all people world-wide do) ner works realistically.
the ascension, etc. is just astronomical lore. I don't see what is the big deal at all. It sure ain't literal. Like..DUH. Even ancient Egypt & Mesopotamia,etc. had thier stories exactly the same xcept for different names. Centuries earlier before Xhristianity was ever thought of.
Here are two things more that I know about God and Jesus:
1. I cannot PROVE God exists; only God can do that.
2. At some point, He will prove himself to you and you will be allowed to choose to believe in that intangible proof ... or not. This will happen. Prepare to choose. By the way: James 1:5-8 This is another thing I know. Please understand that I did NOT say "believe". I know by experience. Try to explain what salt tastes like. You can't, I'll bet. Neither can I explain my spiritual proof
jesus came to be known after an age of about 30yrs.he was a carpenter .then what about the story of the virgin mary. where jesus was worshipped as god from his day of birth.
Once upon a time million years ago Bing Bang made the World..made the humans...Women and Men....Waters...Animals...Hills...Mountains...Rivers...Flowers...Insects....Fishes....Sand...Rainbows....Clouds........People wake up be Serious....There is GOD!!!!!!!!!
All the problems in this world....are created by people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 sec ago
Read 'The Attempted Murder Of God: Hidden Science You Really Need To Know'. As scary or exhilarating or as meaningless as it may be to you, the truth is now beyond question. God is real and Evolution is demonstrably false. It's available from all good bookshops, or it's freely available to order from any library in the world.
@kenyda20 you said: 'sO...what makes you so sure?' Try science, reason, logic, maths, physics, chemistry, biology...the rigorous application of all these in a way that is only now being revealed...but science has known all along... God is absolutely real and evolution from a common ancestor with apes is demonstrably false. Thanks for asking. Best and God bless.
@uFlubber you say intelligent design is 'bs' - you may be surprised to hear that I agree with you. It is not ID that is revealed in science, but God Himself and he is no mere Intelligent Designer. God is absolutely real - we know this now, in science itself, and as scary, as exhilarating or as meaningless as that may be to many, it is the truth.
I feel sorry for you. You seem like an intelligent black man and how you can not see the hand of God just befuddles me. I hope that before you leave this earth, the Lord appears to you and changes your heart.
oh really scientific proof you say, you mean the scientific proof where idiots point to something that exists and then say 'ZOMG A GOD DID IT!!!' like snowflakes 30 years ago.
At 27:00 the Christian apologist in question created a strawman. This was not the original argument but he hoped to win the argument by creating the strawman but Robert M. Price still got him.
I think this is hilarious. Never before have two people, agreeing on so many points, argued so intensely. Infidel Guy looks as bemused as me.
I just like Dr Bob Price's exasperated scepticism. I'm gonna copy the style in my face-to-face debates. I gotta hand it to him though, he readily acknowledges evidence against him and offers some refutation but doesn't try to downplay the relevance of the evidence like most debaters try to do. IMHO.
If there is no God than how was the earth made? Matter can't make matter = first law of thermodynamics. And it couldn't have always been here for thousands of years = second law of thermodynamics (entropy)!!! Think about it!!!!!!!!!!!! Mathematically you can't go wrong with the bible with all that it has predicted = ONLY JESUS SAVES......BELIEVE IN HIM!!
Dr. Phil Fernandes struggled against Dr Price! Price seems VERY well versed in the historical Jesus and teaches Fernandes(or tried to)but theists as Price said early on have a HARD TIME thinking outside of the box!
We have Ahteists like theamazingatheist who has the most hateful foul language character anywhere on Youtube. Then we have peaceful, calm. respectful and seeking atheists. We have so-called Christians who judge others and dont have good ansers. Then there is the Christians who listen and dont judge the person and have good answers.
The theist as usual is giving his own interpretation of his christianity as many many people I have spoken to also do. If christianity was really true to form, there's be only ONE 'type' of their god, not many. And also it wouldnt be a personal interpretation. It's just a joke. It's literally like debating with a child now.
He says that heresay is good evidence. HUH???? I think he's desperate here scarping the bottom of the barrel. He's cornered and is stuck, thus claiming that if people said they saw something then that something has to exist. It's actually shameful and pitiful coming from an intelligent man.
So bigfoot exists because some hicks said they saw a big hairy gorilla with big fangs. Hmm...That just has to be true! Come on, grow up dude.
As usual the theist loses the fight due to lack of evidence. Round about at 1:50 on wards he just starts to crumble around the edges. Starts making shit up.
If theists had ANY evidence,they'd be in a stern position as debaters and theorists. But since they can only quote shit from their bible and not outside information, they might as well speak of dragons and unicorns in existnce- which they unfortunately do. And that is why theists are becoming more and more a laughing stock of the educated.
No he's not. Isn't he the holy spirit? If he was alive he'd have a body (cock and balls and all).
Only in christianity can the son become his own father all at the same time. Er...I'd call that a big conundrum. It's like the question of which came first- the chicken or the egg? Well, in this stupid religion it's both! At the same time.
At least the muslims got it right in stating a one god, not 3... er.... 1.... er... whatever.
I really liked your video and your channel. If you need any help getting this video or channel exposed I use a site called tubeviews.(net) It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position. God Bless!
"En el principio era el Verbo, y el Verbo estába con Dios, y el Verbo era Dios" "Y el Verbo se hizo carne, y habitó entre nosotros" más claro, el agua.
Paul was a liar. He said so. Paul NEVER met this mythological guy called Jesus. The whole thing is based on superstition....ie.. Mithia, Horus, and a host many other "virgin-borned" gods...
yeah u right.. Jesus is the lord he is by his father side... he is alive and his spirit is with us ....don't talk with foolish people ok they will never understand ur words because they are already in darkness
well admit it .......who has evolved further along a white man or a black man. there are obviosu differences....there are even claims that the cranium nomenclatures provide us with a difference in brain capacity. atheists today in an anti racist society arent willing to confessthis though....they are too embarrassed to admit it.
according to evolution blacks are less evolved than caucasian/s
"cranium nomenclatures" and scientific ideas on race are an 18 century theory that have no place in modern science, they were discredited not by the liberal left but by science.
The year we got a black US President the most powerful man in the world this theory is redundant academically and in reality.
1:44:00 Jesus was travelling at the speed of thought...? WTF..? Pure GARBAGE.
If someone living today was to make the claims of magic that are taken as fact in the bible NOBODY would give them credence. The claims of magic are the main reason it MUST be assumed that the biblical stories are works of fiction. Come on believers stop thinking like gullible infants.
ask him what he thinks about evolution. or dinosaur fossils.
ofcourse not! god made a clay man, breathed life into it.man checked out the animals to find a partner. didnt work. god took a rib and shapped it into a woman. set in a magical garden. a talking lizard gets em to eat a forbidden fruit.
the belief system s absurd. believe in god, but not in christianity and its absurdities. beliving in a diety doensnt require believing myths and dogmas that contradict science or rational thought. islam, judaism, buddhism, hinduism, jainism, bahai faith, wicca, paganism, druidism, all these religions are not nearly as absurd. they make way more sense. christianity defies rational thought. the belief systems, not the belief in god. a diety isnt nearly as absurd as garden of eden, etc.
perhaps, but not nearly as intolerant. i, for example, am not a christian, but i am a theist. however, i can accept that u are an athiest. i belive in god, u dont. but, i dont condemn u or try to convert u. lol. thats the difference. its not the absurdities.. its the intolerance for others beliefs, or lack thereof.
Assuming that you're a deist, I agree that deism is less absurd than religions like Christianity and Islam (although not much better logically). You seemed to suggest that other religions aren't as absurd as Xianity. That's what I objected to. Perhaps I mis-interpreted your statement.
If religionists would keep their nonsense to themselves, the world would be much safer.
They're as absurd as claiming that an itinerant preacher was God, born of a virgin and resurrected from the dead? That this individual was identical to a person sent bears to maul kids who called a prophet bald?
That sets a very high bar for absurdity. Islam, for instance, is rather absurd in claiming that God decided to talk to an illiterate 8th century social outcast, but it doesn't even come close to Christianity. Wicca is even less absurd than Islam.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dear Infidelguy, though you and I disagree on some fundamentals, I have been a fan of your show and quest. I am a friend of Dr. Phil Fernandes. As I have refused to respond to EternalSkeptic for some time, he has been spamming posts deriding me on any page on which I have posted. I refuse to answer him not out of fear. I simply will not be harangued rather than debated. I would appreciate it if you delete his insults from your pages and beg your indulgence of the graffiti. Sorry, Not my desire.
Since Phil's best argument is 'majority consensus among scholars', I really wish one of the callers would ask him whether he believed in evolution, since that is the overwhelmingly majority consensus among scientists of all fields (to deny it is a fringe position). Chances are, he doesn't. He is engaging in some special pleading, argument from authority, and argument by numbers. I don't even accept his claim that a majority of bible scholars believe Jesus resurrected.
In a universe where god did exist, and all of the terrible things that hurt the world happen, why would you worship him anyway. It seems a bit like giving a blowjob to somebody who stubs the occasional cigarette out on your head just so they will give you a lift home.
Oh, and don't bother with that free will crap, so many of these bad things occur regardless of human activity, did the ocean send the tsunami of its own volition?
we not just believe that Jesus was a song of God but he is the son ao God... and the BIble says it clearly that Jesus is the son of God... if u see the son u see the father ...we believe in this and u or anyone else can't stop our believes .
As an atheist, I have always thought it was a bad idea to push guys like Price who are so out of the mainstream on the existence of Jesus. An appeal to authority is valid based upon the level of authority and Bob is on the opposite level. To be cornered by Fernandes, one of the worst Christian apologists since Kent Hovind, should speak volumes to freethinkers. BTW, Goggle "The Atheist Syndrome", to see how evangelicals themselves have debunked the "I hate my dad so I'm an atheist" nonsense.
When I was an Christian, we used to be embarassed by Fernandes, particularly those of us who were hispanic. He was so humiliated in the Lowder debate, that I remember sending an e-mail to Sermon Audio asking them to take it down. I'm glad they didn't, now.
I think a show that is hosted by a guy called the "infidel guy" is that last place to find a good debate on anything . This is bias . And when did debate have anything to do with truth ? One day humanity is going to wake up and find out that none of us know the fuck we are talking about .
I have always tried to be as fair as possible considering my bias. You obviously don't know much about me however so I forgive your ignorance. My programs and debates are usually pretty fair. I always allow my guests to speak and even if people I agree with get out of hand, I correct them. haibane, if none of us knew what we were talking about, you wouldn't be using a computer. Why don't you wake up. This is all about showing people that not everything we think we know, is true.
Around twenty years ago I saw numerous books and TV shows claiming that Elvis Presley, who died in 1977, still lived. Suppose 500 people came forth with the claim they saw Elvis alive after his reported death. Would you believe these people?
Actually, the question would be, would he believe you? Because if 500 people actually testified about seing the risen Elvis, that would mean so much more than what's written in the Bible.
In the Bible, Paul merely mentions that were 500 people- the alleged witnesses never actually speak up or write anything.
"if 500 people actually testified about seing the risen Elvis, that would mean so much more than what's written in the Bible." Or else they saw a really persuasive Elvis impersonator. Considering the lack of photography back then, people who saw Jesus casually and at a distance could have easily mistaken an imposter for the real thing. They often didn't even have a good idea what the current Caesar looked like, given the poor representations of human faces on Roman coins.
In fact, even according to the Gospels themselves, the disciples and women didn't recognize Jesus at first. He appeared "in a different form."
And yes, I just used "fact" and "Gospels" in the same sentence. I think that's a first.
What our friend can't understand is that he can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. If we already believed the Bible was true, we would also believe Jesus rose from the dead. No one thinks the Bible is 100% true except for the resurrection.
By the way, the defenses he/she is giving for the resurrection of Jesus may actually be the best that apologists have to offer. I mean, just watch this video! Dr. Fernandes is supposed to be one of the top apologists, yet these are the best arguments he has.
Wrong again. When He lets you stick your hand in His side, there is NO room for misidentification. When thousands sat around Him for hours listening to Him lecture, they cannot misidentify someone else with another voice when they see Him again. Also, you cannot miss an ascension into heaven.
Logic really isn't your strong point is it? All of those accounts were written by other people- probably not the disciples and definitely not Thomas himself.
Don't you get it? If we didn't think those biblical stories were obvious fiction, if we accepted them as fact, we wouldn't need any more evidence! We would already believe, because the Bible says it happened.
PS: There is no way Joseph Smith's witnesses could have been mistaken when they saw him translate his plates.
I got all "A"s in logic. Have you even taken a course in logic?
And switching focus to an obvious fraud whose account is unverifiable and actually has several different versions has NOTHING to do with the Bible or the witnesses to the Christ. You CANNOT have a shared hallucination, therefore, they were not hallucinating when they saw Jesus ascend into the sky. I am pointing out the total lack of epistemology that you are claiming. Epistemology is the system of knowing or discovery you use.
me:I have a book "Histories of the Roman Empire" containing writings from Suetonious and Tacitus.Both verify the Jewish war-so I say it is most likely true.
you:that is a circular argument you are using "histories of the Roman empire" to verify "histories of the Roman empire"
Good point, but there are no secular accounts of the events (not even a mention). The authors of the biblical stories are unknown, as is the date of their authorship. The Gospels are most likely based upon one another, since they have entire sections copied verbatim. Where they do differ in language, they give completely different stories- the Nativity, for instance. They are therefore not independent accounts. None of them mention the "500 witnesses", either.
If the Gospels had been signed instead of written by anonymous authors, and if we knew when they were written, we might be able to use one story to prove another.
As of now, none of that information is known, but there is good reason to believe the Gospels were just rewrites.
It would be like proving an Associated Press story by citing a newspaper which printed the AP wire story. Except that the name of the AP reporter, the AP itself, and the newspaper are all lost to time, and the stories are published decades after the events.
Moreover, CV08 tried to use Doubting Thomas to prove itself. Now here's a story which is only in John. CV08 assumes outright that the event happened, then asks how John could be mistaken, to 'prove' Jesus rose. This is the circular part.
That sort of argument specifically was what I was referring to when I said it was circular reasoning to use the Bible to prove the Bible.
Example:
Paul says there were 500 witnesses to the risen Jesus, besides the disciples. It would be impossible for 500 people to all be mistaken, so the story is true. Of course, this is circular, since one assumes the conclusion, that the event happened, as one of the premises.
In fact, the above argument is what that whole pointless discussion was about.
A more appropriate example would be if, instead of Suetonious and Tacitus, the two accounts didn't give the authors' names or cite sources, thus their knowledge, their location, and their time period would be indeterminable. Additionally, suppose the two accounts contain long, identical passages, showing that one merely repeated what the other said. Thus, the two accounts would be more like one original account and one copy (or two copies), and neither account could be used to verify the other.
You don't need witnesses for unsubstantiated claims about miracles to become part of christian beliefs. Catholics believe in Mary's bodily ascension into heaven, a belief which had the status of speculative theology until Pope Pius XII made it official Catholic doctrine in 1950. If a christian authority figure could poof! Mary bodily into heaven 58 years ago, how do know that something similar didn't happen in ancient times to settle disputes about the fate of Jesus' earthly body?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
YOU can't dispute their claim as YOU weren't there and YOU CANNOT cite any known witnesses that denied the witnesses' testimony. You are still begging the question which is a fallacy of relevance and therefore your argument and claim against the record is invalid and false.
So the writings that state that Julius Caesar was born speaking must be true as long as they reference unsubstantiated witnesses? If any ancient record quotes witnesses to an act, do we accept those as true just because we weren't there? or do we use another method to determine what's true in those instances?
Not if there were witnesses claiming the opposite. There are also claims that Buddha and others did that very thing. It makes such a common myth of avatars easily dismissed. The Koran, I believe, has that same account of Jesus, but, it is not acknowledged as it is clearly false from other accounts. We are leaning on Aristotle's Dictum.
As for the supernatural, I had a surgeon declare to my Uncle that a tumor had been removed from his arm prior to surgery with no scar. Do I disregard that too?
The way I see it, these guys are basically arguing whether green pigs can fly or not. First you need to address the fact that pigs aren't green. ;) Good video tho.
What a retarded theist! I've heard more intelligent arguments bigtime! That's like saying I saw bigfoot, and then expecting all to believe me based on my eye witnessing. What christians cannot accept is that magic tricks existed, no science existed, superstition was rife, and lies could have been blow out of proportion ie the Bigfoot story.
Seen are not seen, your attempt absurdity is absurd. According to which are saying we cannot believe eyewitness testimony. This throws out all of history and 99% of science. We cannot pursley verify everything but are reliant on the testimony of eyewitnesses whether they write their account within two days or 20 years of the event. Your trusting in accounts of history that a been rewritten interpret over time and dismissing accounts that have not changed in 2000 years.
Fifth, Mark's gospel, the oldest of the four, lacked a resurrection story entirely. The story ended with an empty tomb. Later manuscripts added a resurrection which is both abrupt and ridiculous. Be glad those last few verses of Mark are forgeries; otherwise you'd have to be a poison-drinking
Sixth, those "500+ eyewitnesses" boasted by St. Paul and Phil Fernandes are completely silent. Other than the supposed authors of the Gospels, all 500 remained unnamed and silent.
Paul merely asserts in 1 Cor 15 that 500+ people saw the risen Jesus. There is no evidence for this, just an assertion.
Seventh, science doesn't rely on eyewitness testimony, especially not anonymous testimony. It relies on experimentation and testing in controlled, repeatable conditions. If a scientist were to say "people can fly," just because he heard somewhere that someone had seen someone fly, he would be laughed out of academia and discredited.
Nor do historians rely solely on eyewitness evidence. They prefer independent contemporary accounts plus physical evidence. The biblical story has none.
Eighth, the accounts have changed in 2000 years. See Mark 16:9-20. Ever heard of Bart Ehrman?
It would be absurd to believe in Bigfoot based on an eyewitness account,
especially when there is no physical evidence,
and especially when the "eyewitnesses" don't actually testify, as in the case of 1 Corinthians, but instead are merely asserted to exist by a definite non-eyewitness, Paul. In all likelihood, Paul was simply making that up.
Jesus's resurrection is less substantiated than Bigfoot.
You are stating "facts" that disagree with known NT scholarship. The synoptic Gopsels were written by those who were there whether they were disciples or not. They are written or "scribed" by someone else for the person dictating them. And again, I would agree that Ehrman and others that disagree with accepted facts have been already debunked.
"The synoptic Gopsels were written by those who were there whether they were disciples or not."
Evidence, please. And by evidence, I don't mean conjecture. I would like to know who Mark was, and how we know this.
You are merely asserting something as true, yet you have no evidence to back up your claim that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, let alone that they were dictated and scribed.
Science does rely on eyewitness testimony! As a scientist, my study results though they must be replicated, are the product of my testimony that my results are true in my recording of the data. That is why it has to be replicated by others. However, according to your contention, I and hundreds of others may be lying in a conspiracy to alter the truth through the guise of resaerch. Therefore, we cannot trust any science.
Of course you have to use your eyes; that's obvious. There's no "conspiracy." If your findings are true, they can be repeated by others. But you can't accept data from 2000 years ago by "some guy" as truth if you can't repeat the results. Not that the resurrection of Jesus has to do with science. It either happened or it didn't- history is the relevant field.
Again, repeatable observations under controlled conditions is as far from mere "eyewitness" as you can get.
The easiest way to aoid an opponent's points is to create a false dichotomy and/or strawman. Like when you bascially say, "Either I'm right, or there's a huge conspiracy, which is ridiculous. Therefore, I'm right."
You contradicted yourself, anyway. You agree that your findings have to be repeatable because eyewitness testimony alone can't be trusted. Hard evidence beats eyewitness testimony anyway.
That's why scientists don't believe in Bigfoot. There's no evidence, just eyewitnesses. If there were bones, fur, or DNA found, then there might be a case for Bigfoot.
But a mere assertion, "I saw Bigfoot/Jesus" without any evidence does not have any scientific merit.
NO, those are YOUR contentions. I hold that researchers who tell me their results ARE telling the truth until other research reveals that they were lying. YOU are claiming that they are lying until proven true. Your epistemology is flawed. Mine is similar to Aristotle's dictum by which we accept the veracity of ancient works and historical accounts.
That's also the opposite of science, which takes the null hypothesis.
As for history, it's not a matter of whether the authors of the Gospels were lying when they said they were eyewitnesses; they never claimed to be eyewitnesses, and they never even named themselves. It's a matter of whether the identities given centuries later to the authors of the Gospels were correct. If they were, it would be coincidence, since there's nothing in the text that identifies them.
All of this diverts from the original point about the 500+ witnesses. The only "evidence" for these witnesses is the mere assertion of Paul himself. These witnesses were not named, nor did they write anything or tell anyone, as far as we know. It was asserted by Paul without evidence, and so it can be dismissed without evidence.
Do you accept the historicity of King Arthur? Gilgamesh? Enkidu? Hercules? Atlas? Prester John? The Wandering Jew? Aladdin? Jack the Giant-Killer? Robin Hood?
Some of these legendary figures may have existed, including Jesus. Many of these characters existed in a particular time period. But we can't just accept their existence merely because something is written about them, especially when the stories seem so obviously fantastic, unrealistic, and fictitious.
It's not a matter of whether researchers are "lying" or not. Please drop the strawman.
It's a matter of what the evidence says and why. If the only "evidence" is the story itself, as Dr. Fernandes seems to indicate, then that's very weak evidence indeed. There are no known contemporary accounts of Jesus.
What you propose is credulity. I practice skepticism. For one thing, it means I don't have to outright accept a historical Hercules or even Odysseus. If you don't believe in them, why is that?
You are totally ignorant or uneducated. You are denying your own conclusions and cannot see the contradictions of your own arguments. you cannot argue with certainty when you can know nothing. You are holding the position that does not afford certainty or real knowing. Therefore, you cannot ascert anything.
Yes, you cannot claim infallible truth if there ain't no truth. You can't argue authoritatively from history or truth when your world view dismisses historical accounts and science.
...which is why I don't claim infallible truth. You do.
And please, for the love of the gods, drop your pathetic strawman about how I "reject historical accounts and science." I have already explained numerous times how the scientific method demands that evidence be presented to reject the null hypothesis. Science demands evidence that is objective and in some way repeatable. If science accepted eyewitness accounts, then UFO's, Loch Ness monster, and Bigfoot would be considered "fact."
(cont) history demands critical analysis of all evidence. Good history does not flatly accept any stories as true, especially not fantastic ones. Historians weigh evidences against each other, to see if independent accounts agree on a subject. Even better, hard evidence, archaeological or otherwise, can be used if available.
Scientists and especially historians recognize that "infallible truth" can't be known, just what is probable. Theories are subject to change as evidence comes in.
My "worldview," which is a skeptical one, is entirely consistent. I make decisions based on evidence. I use evidence to figure out what I should believe. The stronger the evidence, the more likely something is true. I apply this line of thinking to all things.
For this reason, I can reject UFOs, Bigfoot, elves, Hercules, Odysseus, and Jesus.
I must always consider that any of those things may in fact be real, but there is not yet strong enough evidence to believe so.
Judging by your view, wherein you accept all old accounts outright, your worldview is very inconsistent. You accept that the Bible is true and historically accurate, yet I doubt you feel the same way about the Iliad, or about stories of King Arthur, or about video evidence of Bigfoot or UFOs.
How can you accept the Bible yet reject the Quran, let alone these other stories which are generally considered fictitious?
Burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim, not the negative.
Have you suspended judgment on your suspending judgment? No. Therefore, you are not being consistent. You are crying dogmatically that we cannot be dogmatic in our ascertions.
The scientific method is a way of thinking, and it's gotten great results to prove it works. The moon landing? Vaccines? All the products of the scientific method.
Do you think people simply took Fleming's word for it when he discovered penicillin? Or do you think they tested it for themselves?
This isn't a "dogma." I'm not saying anything is absolutely certain. I'm saying that the best and most useful way to know information is the scientific method. It can't solve everything, but it gets pretty close. That is why I trust the scientific method- the evidence shows it is quite effective.
Dogma would be to say, "there is no life on other planets." Dogma would be to say, "Jesus did (not) exist, and no evidence can convince me otherwise."
Yes, you are. You are saying with certainty that we cannot know with certainty or confidence that historical accounts are true. AND, NO, science cannot tell us whether eyewitness testimony from anywhere is true. You are confusing experimental science with historical science. Historical science is based on deduction and induction not experimentation. You are being dogmatc about skepticism which is selfrefuting as you cannot be skeptical of your skepticism. Please, go take a course in philosophy.
jesus is dead, god never existed
InfidelsUniverse 8 months ago
Watch the video 'Global Warming Facts' by NASA Science.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
Bob, My only uploaded video so far is about you, I love your views on NT exegesis, but i had never heard this. I'm an environmental scientist, how can you say global warming is a mascarade? but i forgive you on this, you know nothing about the electromagnetic spectrum, about infrared radiation absorption, about atmospheric chemistry, about oceanic chemistry, and obviously you have not looked at the evidence.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
you wont understand, because you don't want too...
Its not hard if im a God and I send my spirit through a virgin into the world that means he is an extension of GOD like my arm is and extension of ME so the Origin is God making Jesus God as well its not hard guy
JovB23 8 months ago
Screw this, I'm the risen lord.
There, problem solved.
-Your welcome.
imobeus1 9 months ago
he was a hippie marder
sapper113apc 9 months ago
I love how he has a book that say its evidence for Christianity, when religion has absolutely no evidence to back it up.
bobbysaysyo 10 months ago
are u the guy from wife swap ? that was a good show, i love how u had to experience religion. i dont know why u choose to put ur faith in nothing ...why... ? it leaves u defenseless aginst anything and everthing ! u need to open ur faith, because the same sun u are worshiping in the morning is the sun my god "lord jesus " created . smile my brother jesus loves u too !
duncannez 10 months ago
@duncannez Faith=believing in something without good reason to. Why anyone would do this is beyond reason to me. I would rather believe in things that I have evidence for. There are no gods and if we were to worship gods, then why not Yam or Ham. They did come before yarweh and his son/preist jesus. But christians dont care about the evolutions of their gods. I would suggest reading up on the topic and drop faith and replace it something more useful knowledge!
bigsubwayman1 9 months ago
Wow! So amazing to hear our Christian friend stonewall, attack, and ignore his very articulate opponent, and prove himself so relentlessly deaf. Thanks for the patient tolerance on the part of Team Infidel.
jzt999 11 months ago
To all the Infidels and the ignorant people who listen to this un-Godly trash. You make a mockery of the God and Pastors and those whom God has called. Just know that God is all knowing, and all powerful. You do not get up on your own every breath you take daily is by His grace given unto you. If you cant see that or realize it you are sad.
SO you better recognize before its to late. You are pathetic!!!!
blovedpoet 1 year ago
@blovedpoet Yeah, well, your god should have given us this communicationtechnology long ago. Since he didn't it seems to be Satanic. In that case, you go live up on a mountain without technology and scientific knowledge and talk to god. The best you can do in nature is about 25 years. Keep your eyes open for tooth cavity !
makkreol 11 months ago
@blovedpoet I think threats are pathetic! If there was even a scrap of evidence to your claim then who would not be a believer? The reason people dont believe is because the claim is unsupported. You should invest more time into studying your beliefs so your argument is better than believe this or my imaginary friend will get you! Do you get it? Put up or shut it down! Evidence is needed to be a believer not warm fuzzy feelings or voices in your head. Voices in your head=mental illness...right?
bigsubwayman1 9 months ago
Love the intro, very professional.
menonfire12 1 year ago
Wow! Phil crushed Bob in every aspect. That was a slaughter!
netballa 1 year ago
"Jesus is the "risen lord" and the "light of the world" and your "risen savior" if you know who he symbolizes. He rises every morning bout 5:30. Without him, we are dead." - Jordan Maxwell
Jexka007 1 year ago
CHRISTIANS do not argue with these people... they only see things through natural eyes, they can't see it and will always see us as being crazy... we walk by faith not by sight!!! we have been born again, born into another realm that until they are born again they'll never see it...
babyboi98 1 year ago
@babyboi98 no you are stuck in one realm that you seem to be stuck in because you refuse to open your eyes to science and facts and are bewildered when ANYTHING that even remotely resembles anything that occurs in the bible and propose those coincidences as pure fact when they are not
longliverocknroll5 10 months ago
Dear ig, please dont invite mr.Fernandes back to your show. Its a pain to listen to that endlessly repeated 'truth by nosecount' nonsense. Dr.Price (and the rest of us) deserve better.
aurora123borealis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rally your USA naughty women here benaughtyman.info
jayanihansani 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is online place to find naughty women mworld5.info
njjjjgyhh 1 year ago
infidelguy fits one of two basic non-christian categories: Insanity or Cynicism. Christianity is a revelation, not a reason.
The Apostle Paul in Athens: Acts Chapter 17.
WimGrundy 1 year ago
I love when people use the bible for proof of what's in the bible.
markyboy01 1 year ago
those two are idiots...what are their credentials?
LuminousTruth 1 year ago
@LuminousTruth Who Robert Price?
MrMohjong 1 year ago
So true the saying it's better to be late always. Hahaha. It's a great discussion. Thanks!
Junmendz7 1 year ago
the risen lord is easily stating that it is an astronomical myth. Mesopotamian & ancient Egypt is strong in this. In fact, this is (at best) how religion works. At worst, it is a handbook of major crimes galore. Taken this literally (like most all people world-wide do) ner works realistically.
davemelnick 1 year ago
scribd (dot) com/nb812
DreamsofMajesty 1 year ago
The bible can't be evidence for it's own truth!
Einsteinian99 1 year ago
the ascension, etc. is just astronomical lore. I don't see what is the big deal at all. It sure ain't literal. Like..DUH. Even ancient Egypt & Mesopotamia,etc. had thier stories exactly the same xcept for different names. Centuries earlier before Xhristianity was ever thought of.
davidmelnick 1 year ago
I pray that these poisonous feeds are removed from youtube.
Stiletofox 1 year ago
@Stiletofox I pray that you never get to open your mind a bit so you can keep wasting your life believing in superstitious bullshit >:)
JuanchoMan 1 year ago
Here are two things more that I know about God and Jesus:
1. I cannot PROVE God exists; only God can do that.
2. At some point, He will prove himself to you and you will be allowed to choose to believe in that intangible proof ... or not. This will happen. Prepare to choose. By the way: James 1:5-8 This is another thing I know. Please understand that I did NOT say "believe". I know by experience. Try to explain what salt tastes like. You can't, I'll bet. Neither can I explain my spiritual proof
katiejoy331 1 year ago
@katiejoy331 ...then you should not be calling it ''proof''.
lipoicacid 1 year ago
jesus came to be known after an age of about 30yrs.he was a carpenter .then what about the story of the virgin mary. where jesus was worshipped as god from his day of birth.
thedragon400 1 year ago
the song that this starts out with is the biggdy bomb.
addab 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Once upon a time million years ago Bing Bang made the World..made the humans...Women and Men....Waters...Animals...Hills...Mountains...Rivers...Flowers...Insects....Fishes....Sand...Rainbows....Clouds........People wake up be Serious....There is GOD!!!!!!!!!
All the problems in this world....are created by people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 sec ago
MUSICSYSTEMOK 1 year ago
Is jesus the risen lord? Thats the question for the debate? lmao.
Horus515 1 year ago
@types10000
Read 'The Attempted Murder Of God: Hidden Science You Really Need To Know'. As scary or exhilarating or as meaningless as it may be to you, the truth is now beyond question. God is real and Evolution is demonstrably false. It's available from all good bookshops, or it's freely available to order from any library in the world.
byScrooby 1 year ago
@byScrooby sO...what makes you so sure?
kenyda20 1 year ago
@kenyda20 you said: 'sO...what makes you so sure?' Try science, reason, logic, maths, physics, chemistry, biology...the rigorous application of all these in a way that is only now being revealed...but science has known all along... God is absolutely real and evolution from a common ancestor with apes is demonstrably false. Thanks for asking. Best and God bless.
byScrooby 1 year ago
@byScrooby You should watch the Ken Miller video where he destroys ID as a science and shows it for being the bs it really is.
uFlubber 1 year ago
@uFlubber you say intelligent design is 'bs' - you may be surprised to hear that I agree with you. It is not ID that is revealed in science, but God Himself and he is no mere Intelligent Designer. God is absolutely real - we know this now, in science itself, and as scary, as exhilarating or as meaningless as that may be to many, it is the truth.
byScrooby 1 year ago
I feel sorry for you. You seem like an intelligent black man and how you can not see the hand of God just befuddles me. I hope that before you leave this earth, the Lord appears to you and changes your heart.
MrVonsidious 2 years ago
Interesting statement.
What about the millions of others that die with out God, smart or dumb?
besidemymind 1 year ago
Couldn't he have been just an intelligent man?
atori123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is most definitely real. For those who doubted it, there is now scientific proof. For those who knew - well, you were right.
byScrooby 2 years ago
@byScrooby
oh really scientific proof you say, you mean the scientific proof where idiots point to something that exists and then say 'ZOMG A GOD DID IT!!!' like snowflakes 30 years ago.
bloody theists.
types10000 1 year ago
So Jesus claimed he was the son, the most "logical" explanation of the empty tomb was that he rose from the dead, so therefore it's true? LMAO
camino1ca 2 years ago
At 27:00 the Christian apologist in question created a strawman. This was not the original argument but he hoped to win the argument by creating the strawman but Robert M. Price still got him.
antoinelamond 2 years ago
I think this is hilarious. Never before have two people, agreeing on so many points, argued so intensely. Infidel Guy looks as bemused as me.
I just like Dr Bob Price's exasperated scepticism. I'm gonna copy the style in my face-to-face debates. I gotta hand it to him though, he readily acknowledges evidence against him and offers some refutation but doesn't try to downplay the relevance of the evidence like most debaters try to do. IMHO.
smhussain62 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If there is no God than how was the earth made? Matter can't make matter = first law of thermodynamics. And it couldn't have always been here for thousands of years = second law of thermodynamics (entropy)!!! Think about it!!!!!!!!!!!! Mathematically you can't go wrong with the bible with all that it has predicted = ONLY JESUS SAVES......BELIEVE IN HIM!!
TCAP4444 2 years ago
If there IS a God how was he himself created? Magic, right? Ah, you have magic and we don't - you win.
IrreplacablePerry 2 years ago
There is NO god and jesus christ is his only begotton son!
bunkopaniczny 2 years ago 7
Dr. Phil Fernandes struggled against Dr Price! Price seems VERY well versed in the historical Jesus and teaches Fernandes(or tried to)but theists as Price said early on have a HARD TIME thinking outside of the box!
99minerkc 2 years ago
ASATHECOMIC?
like the new page
rok30 2 years ago
Hey I saw THIS guy on on wife-swap.
His wife went to live with a pastor and a pastor's wife came to live with him lol!
vbfl920 2 years ago
good work.
ImhotepRamses 2 years ago
We have Ahteists like theamazingatheist who has the most hateful foul language character anywhere on Youtube. Then we have peaceful, calm. respectful and seeking atheists. We have so-called Christians who judge others and dont have good ansers. Then there is the Christians who listen and dont judge the person and have good answers.
NoneBeforeNoneAfter 2 years ago 5
To be honest, TAA isn't so bad language wise. It's kind of sad how overly sensitive to words a lot of people are.
Darklust413 2 years ago
You could not have said it any better my friend.
People attack everyone though like they are ALL in those extremes.
vbfl920 2 years ago
The theist as usual is giving his own interpretation of his christianity as many many people I have spoken to also do. If christianity was really true to form, there's be only ONE 'type' of their god, not many. And also it wouldnt be a personal interpretation. It's just a joke. It's literally like debating with a child now.
Domzdream 2 years ago 14
@Domzdream You got 8 thumbs Dom.Who knew??? =D
lipoicacid 1 year ago
@lipoicacid
hehe. Hello, my friend. Long time no hear.
Domzdream 1 year ago
He says that heresay is good evidence. HUH???? I think he's desperate here scarping the bottom of the barrel. He's cornered and is stuck, thus claiming that if people said they saw something then that something has to exist. It's actually shameful and pitiful coming from an intelligent man.
So bigfoot exists because some hicks said they saw a big hairy gorilla with big fangs. Hmm...That just has to be true! Come on, grow up dude.
Domzdream 2 years ago
As usual the theist loses the fight due to lack of evidence. Round about at 1:50 on wards he just starts to crumble around the edges. Starts making shit up.
If theists had ANY evidence,they'd be in a stern position as debaters and theorists. But since they can only quote shit from their bible and not outside information, they might as well speak of dragons and unicorns in existnce- which they unfortunately do. And that is why theists are becoming more and more a laughing stock of the educated.
Domzdream 2 years ago
Yep, they got nuthin...
leeroynaggins 2 years ago
Price owned him, He's much more unbiased and clear minded to logic than fernandez.
Nowitzki25 2 years ago 3
God is alive and well!
SummerSunshine1988 2 years ago
No he's not. Isn't he the holy spirit? If he was alive he'd have a body (cock and balls and all).
Only in christianity can the son become his own father all at the same time. Er...I'd call that a big conundrum. It's like the question of which came first- the chicken or the egg? Well, in this stupid religion it's both! At the same time.
At least the muslims got it right in stating a one god, not 3... er.... 1.... er... whatever.
Domzdream 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I really liked your video and your channel. If you need any help getting this video or channel exposed I use a site called tubeviews.(net) It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position. God Bless!
Sweet!
Camiladfsf 2 years ago
"En el principio era el Verbo, y el Verbo estába con Dios, y el Verbo era Dios" "Y el Verbo se hizo carne, y habitó entre nosotros" más claro, el agua.
Sara0alya 2 years ago
Paul was a liar. He said so. Paul NEVER met this mythological guy called Jesus. The whole thing is based on superstition....ie.. Mithia, Horus, and a host many other "virgin-borned" gods...
spotball7 2 years ago
yeah u right.. Jesus is the lord he is by his father side... he is alive and his spirit is with us ....don't talk with foolish people ok they will never understand ur words because they are already in darkness
lovecarlaa18 2 years ago
well admit it .......who has evolved further along a white man or a black man. there are obviosu differences....there are even claims that the cranium nomenclatures provide us with a difference in brain capacity. atheists today in an anti racist society arent willing to confessthis though....they are too embarrassed to admit it.
according to evolution blacks are less evolved than caucasian/s
mrluke13 2 years ago
"cranium nomenclatures" and scientific ideas on race are an 18 century theory that have no place in modern science, they were discredited not by the liberal left but by science.
The year we got a black US President the most powerful man in the world this theory is redundant academically and in reality.
LouisPlume 2 years ago 2
i hope this black guy is happy that his evolution theory puts him at the back of the bus of the lower race that hasnt evolved well enough.....
besides we saw him on tv crying his eyes out....who is he fooling? himself
mrluke13 2 years ago
Dipshit, that skin colors changed to fit environments has nothing to do with higher or lower.
shunyotube 2 years ago
So you know something about evolution that no one else knows?
cjunk351 2 years ago
1:44:00 Jesus was travelling at the speed of thought...? WTF..? Pure GARBAGE.
If someone living today was to make the claims of magic that are taken as fact in the bible NOBODY would give them credence. The claims of magic are the main reason it MUST be assumed that the biblical stories are works of fiction. Come on believers stop thinking like gullible infants.
motile 3 years ago
"God for he loves you"
Drowning, smiting, plaguing, cursing and burning people is NOT love
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
amen
dave6779 3 years ago
ask him what he thinks about evolution. or dinosaur fossils.
ofcourse not! god made a clay man, breathed life into it.man checked out the animals to find a partner. didnt work. god took a rib and shapped it into a woman. set in a magical garden. a talking lizard gets em to eat a forbidden fruit.
taliesin939939 3 years ago
Sounds good to me, but when does Xenu arrive..?
motile 3 years ago
the belief system s absurd. believe in god, but not in christianity and its absurdities. beliving in a diety doensnt require believing myths and dogmas that contradict science or rational thought. islam, judaism, buddhism, hinduism, jainism, bahai faith, wicca, paganism, druidism, all these religions are not nearly as absurd. they make way more sense. christianity defies rational thought. the belief systems, not the belief in god. a diety isnt nearly as absurd as garden of eden, etc.
taliesin939939 3 years ago
Many of the religions you listed are equally absurd as Christianity.
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
perhaps, but not nearly as intolerant. i, for example, am not a christian, but i am a theist. however, i can accept that u are an athiest. i belive in god, u dont. but, i dont condemn u or try to convert u. lol. thats the difference. its not the absurdities.. its the intolerance for others beliefs, or lack thereof.
taliesin939939 3 years ago
Assuming that you're a deist, I agree that deism is less absurd than religions like Christianity and Islam (although not much better logically). You seemed to suggest that other religions aren't as absurd as Xianity. That's what I objected to. Perhaps I mis-interpreted your statement.
If religionists would keep their nonsense to themselves, the world would be much safer.
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago
They're as absurd as claiming that an itinerant preacher was God, born of a virgin and resurrected from the dead? That this individual was identical to a person sent bears to maul kids who called a prophet bald?
That sets a very high bar for absurdity. Islam, for instance, is rather absurd in claiming that God decided to talk to an illiterate 8th century social outcast, but it doesn't even come close to Christianity. Wicca is even less absurd than Islam.
BobTheViking24 3 years ago
"The one you endorsed, the Jesus Legend"
I have read that book, it likewise helped me tremendously when dealing with arguments from the likes of Robert Price.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dear Infidelguy, though you and I disagree on some fundamentals, I have been a fan of your show and quest. I am a friend of Dr. Phil Fernandes. As I have refused to respond to EternalSkeptic for some time, he has been spamming posts deriding me on any page on which I have posted. I refuse to answer him not out of fear. I simply will not be harangued rather than debated. I would appreciate it if you delete his insults from your pages and beg your indulgence of the graffiti. Sorry, Not my desire.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Since Phil's best argument is 'majority consensus among scholars', I really wish one of the callers would ask him whether he believed in evolution, since that is the overwhelmingly majority consensus among scientists of all fields (to deny it is a fringe position). Chances are, he doesn't. He is engaging in some special pleading, argument from authority, and argument by numbers. I don't even accept his claim that a majority of bible scholars believe Jesus resurrected.
lostn65 3 years ago 3
Hey Reggie, do you support Murdocks book The Christ Conspiracy.?
KeithTruth 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In a universe where god did exist, and all of the terrible things that hurt the world happen, why would you worship him anyway. It seems a bit like giving a blowjob to somebody who stubs the occasional cigarette out on your head just so they will give you a lift home.
Oh, and don't bother with that free will crap, so many of these bad things occur regardless of human activity, did the ocean send the tsunami of its own volition?
gabiotta 3 years ago 3
Reggie, what's that thing where some cancers go away without medical attention?
Silentkill666 3 years ago
Ok jesus was a carpenter who was nailed to a piece of wood. That's basically it. And christians believe this guy was the son of god? Lol.
EnigmaHood 3 years ago
we not just believe that Jesus was a song of God but he is the son ao God... and the BIble says it clearly that Jesus is the son of God... if u see the son u see the father ...we believe in this and u or anyone else can't stop our believes .
lovecarlaa18 2 years ago
Yeah yeah, stop believing in fairytales for adults. God doesn't exist, and jesus was a cult leader.
EnigmaHood 2 years ago
if u says God doesn't exist I can't talk with u...... ok
lovecarlaa18 2 years ago
Funny how you say you can't talk with me but yet you post comments on two of my videos lol.
EnigmaHood 2 years ago 2
Ii changed my mind so.....
lovecarlaa18 2 years ago
As an atheist, I have always thought it was a bad idea to push guys like Price who are so out of the mainstream on the existence of Jesus. An appeal to authority is valid based upon the level of authority and Bob is on the opposite level. To be cornered by Fernandes, one of the worst Christian apologists since Kent Hovind, should speak volumes to freethinkers. BTW, Goggle "The Atheist Syndrome", to see how evangelicals themselves have debunked the "I hate my dad so I'm an atheist" nonsense.
YOURINQUIRER 3 years ago
I for one think that Dr. Fernandes is a fine apologist.
legendarymoe 2 years ago
When I was an Christian, we used to be embarassed by Fernandes, particularly those of us who were hispanic. He was so humiliated in the Lowder debate, that I remember sending an e-mail to Sermon Audio asking them to take it down. I'm glad they didn't, now.
YOURINQUIRER 2 years ago
He's not even hispanic.. He's Portuguese/Italian. I happen to know him personally.
legendarymoe 2 years ago
Thank you so very much! Whew!
YOURINQUIRER 2 years ago 2
Thank you for posting this.
I'm a fan of Bob's.
Ó
quixote5 3 years ago
You are so boring!
wolvie041007 3 years ago
I can tell you didn't even watch the show. My guests spoke through most of the show. Trolling eh?
infidelguy 3 years ago
@infidelguy ignore wolvie
phenomwon 1 year ago
I think a show that is hosted by a guy called the "infidel guy" is that last place to find a good debate on anything . This is bias . And when did debate have anything to do with truth ? One day humanity is going to wake up and find out that none of us know the fuck we are talking about .
haibane13 3 years ago
I have always tried to be as fair as possible considering my bias. You obviously don't know much about me however so I forgive your ignorance. My programs and debates are usually pretty fair. I always allow my guests to speak and even if people I agree with get out of hand, I correct them. haibane, if none of us knew what we were talking about, you wouldn't be using a computer. Why don't you wake up. This is all about showing people that not everything we think we know, is true.
infidelguy 3 years ago 4
thanks for the pity , jerk .
haibane13 3 years ago
I don't see any lines of pity anywhere in what I said prior.
infidelguy 3 years ago
Don't bother wasting your time on this idiot.
You're too awesome.
DonusAmbrose 3 years ago
What's that song you have playing at the beginning?
amseale 3 years ago
Around twenty years ago I saw numerous books and TV shows claiming that Elvis Presley, who died in 1977, still lived. Suppose 500 people came forth with the claim they saw Elvis alive after his reported death. Would you believe these people?
advancedatheist 3 years ago
500 people at one time?
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Actually, the question would be, would he believe you? Because if 500 people actually testified about seing the risen Elvis, that would mean so much more than what's written in the Bible.
In the Bible, Paul merely mentions that were 500 people- the alleged witnesses never actually speak up or write anything.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
"if 500 people actually testified about seing the risen Elvis, that would mean so much more than what's written in the Bible." Or else they saw a really persuasive Elvis impersonator. Considering the lack of photography back then, people who saw Jesus casually and at a distance could have easily mistaken an imposter for the real thing. They often didn't even have a good idea what the current Caesar looked like, given the poor representations of human faces on Roman coins.
advancedatheist 3 years ago
In fact, even according to the Gospels themselves, the disciples and women didn't recognize Jesus at first. He appeared "in a different form."
And yes, I just used "fact" and "Gospels" in the same sentence. I think that's a first.
What our friend can't understand is that he can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. If we already believed the Bible was true, we would also believe Jesus rose from the dead. No one thinks the Bible is 100% true except for the resurrection.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
By the way, the defenses he/she is giving for the resurrection of Jesus may actually be the best that apologists have to offer. I mean, just watch this video! Dr. Fernandes is supposed to be one of the top apologists, yet these are the best arguments he has.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Wrong again. When He lets you stick your hand in His side, there is NO room for misidentification. When thousands sat around Him for hours listening to Him lecture, they cannot misidentify someone else with another voice when they see Him again. Also, you cannot miss an ascension into heaven.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Logic really isn't your strong point is it? All of those accounts were written by other people- probably not the disciples and definitely not Thomas himself.
Don't you get it? If we didn't think those biblical stories were obvious fiction, if we accepted them as fact, we wouldn't need any more evidence! We would already believe, because the Bible says it happened.
PS: There is no way Joseph Smith's witnesses could have been mistaken when they saw him translate his plates.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
I got all "A"s in logic. Have you even taken a course in logic?
And switching focus to an obvious fraud whose account is unverifiable and actually has several different versions has NOTHING to do with the Bible or the witnesses to the Christ. You CANNOT have a shared hallucination, therefore, they were not hallucinating when they saw Jesus ascend into the sky. I am pointing out the total lack of epistemology that you are claiming. Epistemology is the system of knowing or discovery you use.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Yes, three of them. All A's.
Did they ever teach you what a circular argument is?
Example: The Bible is true because it is verified by the Bible and the Bible is true.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Strike that- 5 of them. I left out Statistics and Rhetoric.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
(sigh) the bible is not one book.
Let me give you an analogy
me:I have a book "Histories of the Roman Empire" containing writings from Suetonious and Tacitus.Both verify the Jewish war-so I say it is most likely true.
you:that is a circular argument you are using "histories of the Roman empire" to verify "histories of the Roman empire"
-See your faulty logic
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
Good point, but there are no secular accounts of the events (not even a mention). The authors of the biblical stories are unknown, as is the date of their authorship. The Gospels are most likely based upon one another, since they have entire sections copied verbatim. Where they do differ in language, they give completely different stories- the Nativity, for instance. They are therefore not independent accounts. None of them mention the "500 witnesses", either.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
If the Gospels had been signed instead of written by anonymous authors, and if we knew when they were written, we might be able to use one story to prove another.
As of now, none of that information is known, but there is good reason to believe the Gospels were just rewrites.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
It would be like proving an Associated Press story by citing a newspaper which printed the AP wire story. Except that the name of the AP reporter, the AP itself, and the newspaper are all lost to time, and the stories are published decades after the events.
Moreover, CV08 tried to use Doubting Thomas to prove itself. Now here's a story which is only in John. CV08 assumes outright that the event happened, then asks how John could be mistaken, to 'prove' Jesus rose. This is the circular part.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
That sort of argument specifically was what I was referring to when I said it was circular reasoning to use the Bible to prove the Bible.
Example:
Paul says there were 500 witnesses to the risen Jesus, besides the disciples. It would be impossible for 500 people to all be mistaken, so the story is true. Of course, this is circular, since one assumes the conclusion, that the event happened, as one of the premises.
In fact, the above argument is what that whole pointless discussion was about.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
A more appropriate example would be if, instead of Suetonious and Tacitus, the two accounts didn't give the authors' names or cite sources, thus their knowledge, their location, and their time period would be indeterminable. Additionally, suppose the two accounts contain long, identical passages, showing that one merely repeated what the other said. Thus, the two accounts would be more like one original account and one copy (or two copies), and neither account could be used to verify the other.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
But I'll give it a rest.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
You don't need witnesses for unsubstantiated claims about miracles to become part of christian beliefs. Catholics believe in Mary's bodily ascension into heaven, a belief which had the status of speculative theology until Pope Pius XII made it official Catholic doctrine in 1950. If a christian authority figure could poof! Mary bodily into heaven 58 years ago, how do know that something similar didn't happen in ancient times to settle disputes about the fate of Jesus' earthly body?
advancedatheist 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
YOU can't dispute their claim as YOU weren't there and YOU CANNOT cite any known witnesses that denied the witnesses' testimony. You are still begging the question which is a fallacy of relevance and therefore your argument and claim against the record is invalid and false.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
So the writings that state that Julius Caesar was born speaking must be true as long as they reference unsubstantiated witnesses? If any ancient record quotes witnesses to an act, do we accept those as true just because we weren't there? or do we use another method to determine what's true in those instances?
infidelguy 3 years ago
Not if there were witnesses claiming the opposite. There are also claims that Buddha and others did that very thing. It makes such a common myth of avatars easily dismissed. The Koran, I believe, has that same account of Jesus, but, it is not acknowledged as it is clearly false from other accounts. We are leaning on Aristotle's Dictum.
As for the supernatural, I had a surgeon declare to my Uncle that a tumor had been removed from his arm prior to surgery with no scar. Do I disregard that too?
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
The way I see it, these guys are basically arguing whether green pigs can fly or not. First you need to address the fact that pigs aren't green. ;) Good video tho.
Dem212 3 years ago
Dr Price has his head screwed on right, the other guy is a nutjob.
Great debate Reggie! Keep 'em coming.
wvmvmnwnuhuhyhy 3 years ago
What a retarded theist! I've heard more intelligent arguments bigtime! That's like saying I saw bigfoot, and then expecting all to believe me based on my eye witnessing. What christians cannot accept is that magic tricks existed, no science existed, superstition was rife, and lies could have been blow out of proportion ie the Bigfoot story.
Domzdream 3 years ago
But did you know the Bigfoot story had 500 witnesses? It's true; I read it in a book written 40-100 years after it happened.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago 4
Seen are not seen, your attempt absurdity is absurd. According to which are saying we cannot believe eyewitness testimony. This throws out all of history and 99% of science. We cannot pursley verify everything but are reliant on the testimony of eyewitnesses whether they write their account within two days or 20 years of the event. Your trusting in accounts of history that a been rewritten interpret over time and dismissing accounts that have not changed in 2000 years.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
First of all, it was at least 40 years after the events.
Second of all, of the four canonical gospels, only two of the alleged authors (John, Matthew) would have been eyewitnesses.
Third of all, there is no reason to believe that the Gospels were written by the authors whose names were later given as titles to the Gospels.
Fourth of all, the accounts are largely dependent on one another. Matthew and Luke lift entire passages verbatim from Mark.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Fifth, Mark's gospel, the oldest of the four, lacked a resurrection story entirely. The story ended with an empty tomb. Later manuscripts added a resurrection which is both abrupt and ridiculous. Be glad those last few verses of Mark are forgeries; otherwise you'd have to be a poison-drinking
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
snake-handler and exorcist to get to heaven.
Sixth, those "500+ eyewitnesses" boasted by St. Paul and Phil Fernandes are completely silent. Other than the supposed authors of the Gospels, all 500 remained unnamed and silent.
Paul merely asserts in 1 Cor 15 that 500+ people saw the risen Jesus. There is no evidence for this, just an assertion.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago 2
Seventh, science doesn't rely on eyewitness testimony, especially not anonymous testimony. It relies on experimentation and testing in controlled, repeatable conditions. If a scientist were to say "people can fly," just because he heard somewhere that someone had seen someone fly, he would be laughed out of academia and discredited.
Nor do historians rely solely on eyewitness evidence. They prefer independent contemporary accounts plus physical evidence. The biblical story has none.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago 2
Eighth, the accounts have changed in 2000 years. See Mark 16:9-20. Ever heard of Bart Ehrman?
It would be absurd to believe in Bigfoot based on an eyewitness account,
especially when there is no physical evidence,
and especially when the "eyewitnesses" don't actually testify, as in the case of 1 Corinthians, but instead are merely asserted to exist by a definite non-eyewitness, Paul. In all likelihood, Paul was simply making that up.
Jesus's resurrection is less substantiated than Bigfoot.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago 2
You are stating "facts" that disagree with known NT scholarship. The synoptic Gopsels were written by those who were there whether they were disciples or not. They are written or "scribed" by someone else for the person dictating them. And again, I would agree that Ehrman and others that disagree with accepted facts have been already debunked.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
"The synoptic Gopsels were written by those who were there whether they were disciples or not."
Evidence, please. And by evidence, I don't mean conjecture. I would like to know who Mark was, and how we know this.
You are merely asserting something as true, yet you have no evidence to back up your claim that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, let alone that they were dictated and scribed.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Science does rely on eyewitness testimony! As a scientist, my study results though they must be replicated, are the product of my testimony that my results are true in my recording of the data. That is why it has to be replicated by others. However, according to your contention, I and hundreds of others may be lying in a conspiracy to alter the truth through the guise of resaerch. Therefore, we cannot trust any science.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Of course you have to use your eyes; that's obvious. There's no "conspiracy." If your findings are true, they can be repeated by others. But you can't accept data from 2000 years ago by "some guy" as truth if you can't repeat the results. Not that the resurrection of Jesus has to do with science. It either happened or it didn't- history is the relevant field.
Again, repeatable observations under controlled conditions is as far from mere "eyewitness" as you can get.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
The easiest way to aoid an opponent's points is to create a false dichotomy and/or strawman. Like when you bascially say, "Either I'm right, or there's a huge conspiracy, which is ridiculous. Therefore, I'm right."
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago 2
In other words, as you put it, "Your attempt at absurdity is absurd."
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
*avoid
*basically
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
You contradicted yourself, anyway. You agree that your findings have to be repeatable because eyewitness testimony alone can't be trusted. Hard evidence beats eyewitness testimony anyway.
That's why scientists don't believe in Bigfoot. There's no evidence, just eyewitnesses. If there were bones, fur, or DNA found, then there might be a case for Bigfoot.
But a mere assertion, "I saw Bigfoot/Jesus" without any evidence does not have any scientific merit.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
NO, those are YOUR contentions. I hold that researchers who tell me their results ARE telling the truth until other research reveals that they were lying. YOU are claiming that they are lying until proven true. Your epistemology is flawed. Mine is similar to Aristotle's dictum by which we accept the veracity of ancient works and historical accounts.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
That's also the opposite of science, which takes the null hypothesis.
As for history, it's not a matter of whether the authors of the Gospels were lying when they said they were eyewitnesses; they never claimed to be eyewitnesses, and they never even named themselves. It's a matter of whether the identities given centuries later to the authors of the Gospels were correct. If they were, it would be coincidence, since there's nothing in the text that identifies them.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
All of this diverts from the original point about the 500+ witnesses. The only "evidence" for these witnesses is the mere assertion of Paul himself. These witnesses were not named, nor did they write anything or tell anyone, as far as we know. It was asserted by Paul without evidence, and so it can be dismissed without evidence.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Do you accept the historicity of King Arthur? Gilgamesh? Enkidu? Hercules? Atlas? Prester John? The Wandering Jew? Aladdin? Jack the Giant-Killer? Robin Hood?
Some of these legendary figures may have existed, including Jesus. Many of these characters existed in a particular time period. But we can't just accept their existence merely because something is written about them, especially when the stories seem so obviously fantastic, unrealistic, and fictitious.
Now please disprove Hercules.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
It's not a matter of whether researchers are "lying" or not. Please drop the strawman.
It's a matter of what the evidence says and why. If the only "evidence" is the story itself, as Dr. Fernandes seems to indicate, then that's very weak evidence indeed. There are no known contemporary accounts of Jesus.
What you propose is credulity. I practice skepticism. For one thing, it means I don't have to outright accept a historical Hercules or even Odysseus. If you don't believe in them, why is that?
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
You are totally ignorant or uneducated. You are denying your own conclusions and cannot see the contradictions of your own arguments. you cannot argue with certainty when you can know nothing. You are holding the position that does not afford certainty or real knowing. Therefore, you cannot ascert anything.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Is there a point in here that I'm missing?
Or is this just a really long-winded way of saying "I'm right, you're wrong, go away"?
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Yes, you cannot claim infallible truth if there ain't no truth. You can't argue authoritatively from history or truth when your world view dismisses historical accounts and science.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
...which is why I don't claim infallible truth. You do.
And please, for the love of the gods, drop your pathetic strawman about how I "reject historical accounts and science." I have already explained numerous times how the scientific method demands that evidence be presented to reject the null hypothesis. Science demands evidence that is objective and in some way repeatable. If science accepted eyewitness accounts, then UFO's, Loch Ness monster, and Bigfoot would be considered "fact."
Likewise
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
(cont) history demands critical analysis of all evidence. Good history does not flatly accept any stories as true, especially not fantastic ones. Historians weigh evidences against each other, to see if independent accounts agree on a subject. Even better, hard evidence, archaeological or otherwise, can be used if available.
Scientists and especially historians recognize that "infallible truth" can't be known, just what is probable. Theories are subject to change as evidence comes in.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
My "worldview," which is a skeptical one, is entirely consistent. I make decisions based on evidence. I use evidence to figure out what I should believe. The stronger the evidence, the more likely something is true. I apply this line of thinking to all things.
For this reason, I can reject UFOs, Bigfoot, elves, Hercules, Odysseus, and Jesus.
I must always consider that any of those things may in fact be real, but there is not yet strong enough evidence to believe so.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Judging by your view, wherein you accept all old accounts outright, your worldview is very inconsistent. You accept that the Bible is true and historically accurate, yet I doubt you feel the same way about the Iliad, or about stories of King Arthur, or about video evidence of Bigfoot or UFOs.
How can you accept the Bible yet reject the Quran, let alone these other stories which are generally considered fictitious?
Burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim, not the negative.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Have you suspended judgment on your suspending judgment? No. Therefore, you are not being consistent. You are crying dogmatically that we cannot be dogmatic in our ascertions.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Dogmatically? Is this a joke?
The scientific method is a way of thinking, and it's gotten great results to prove it works. The moon landing? Vaccines? All the products of the scientific method.
Do you think people simply took Fleming's word for it when he discovered penicillin? Or do you think they tested it for themselves?
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
This isn't a "dogma." I'm not saying anything is absolutely certain. I'm saying that the best and most useful way to know information is the scientific method. It can't solve everything, but it gets pretty close. That is why I trust the scientific method- the evidence shows it is quite effective.
Dogma would be to say, "there is no life on other planets." Dogma would be to say, "Jesus did (not) exist, and no evidence can convince me otherwise."
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Yes, you are. You are saying with certainty that we cannot know with certainty or confidence that historical accounts are true. AND, NO, science cannot tell us whether eyewitness testimony from anywhere is true. You are confusing experimental science with historical science. Historical science is based on deduction and induction not experimentation. You are being dogmatc about skepticism which is selfrefuting as you cannot be skeptical of your skepticism. Please, go take a course in philosophy.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago