Wow--I didn't think I would ever find a clip where I agreed with everything WLC had to say in the clip. But this is exactly right--theists need to ask themselves why they believe what they do. The truth is--most of them believe as they do because they were indoctrinated as children, and their parents and community believe in their religion. Most theists are indeed self-deluded. The huge number of gods and religions, and why people believe--this is a massive problem for religion.
The most logical explanation considering none of the have any physical empirical evidence is that they are ALL wrong and ALL of the zealots truly are self deluded.
This guy is a third rate debater. People don't want to debate him because he is exasperating! Asserts so many false premises then argues from that false beginning. Only people without a valid argument stoop to these tactics. Dawkins does not want to debate crackpots because he does not want it to appear that nutty beliefs are valid or have credence. That would be like me debating a 6 year old on santa's existence.
Of course they can't all be right. That is logical. However, that does not preclude that they can all be right for each person. This is not a black and white discussion. Each person believes what they wish because we are individuals and not of a hive mind. As such, our world is defined by our experiences. As they differ, so do our beliefs. To say that yours is the only correct one is sheer arrogance regardless of what someone said in a book. Open your minds! Blessings to all! =)
@joshthepagan Religion is nothing more than a geographical construct. It's completely random. If you're born in one place you are that religion and if you're born in another you a another religion. If any of them where actually true it would have an even distribution across the globe because it would be universally accepted and undeniable. Apparently none of the superstitions are that powerful though.
This is kid stuff. WL Craig proclaims "religious relativism may not be true after all". He goes on to say that it is "logically inconsistent and therefore cannot be true", blah, blah, blah.
He does get points for his admission "christianity could be wrong" (it almost certainly is wrong)
Some creationists call this guy "a great philosopher". He's a 1st rate christian apologist/sophist and 3rd rate philosopher
@gangster3591 lol yeah who destroyed atheist left and right and physic dr. krauss lol even richard dwakins cowards it will not debate mr. craig. btw he converted over 15 hard-headed atheist. repent of your sins. watch mr. craig...listen!
@MegaGangstaparadise .."lol yeah who destroyed atheist left and right and physic dr. krauss lol even richard dwakins cowards it will not debate mr. craig. btw he converted over 15 hard-headed atheist. repent of your sins. watch mr. craig...listen!"?
Appreciation for your comment Mr Paradise. Frankly, I don't need advice from people who write nonsense, particularly at grade school level
This is kid stuff. WL Craig proclaims "religious relativism may not be true after all". He goes on to say that it is "logically inconsistent and therefore cannot be true", blah, blah, blah.
He does get points for his admission "christianity could be wrong" (it almost certainly is wrong)
Some creationists call this guy "a great philosopher". He's a 1st rate christian apologist/sophist, and 3rd rate philosopher
So why is he a chirstain??-- all the reglion can't possibly be true -- but they can all be false.
this is one of Darwkins main points.. there are many relgions out there.. what are the odds that you were born in the country which just happens to worship the right God.
He is a pro at debating for who ever pays him, if you call that debating with no science even though he is a science guy? When did talking in circles become science?When your going down and grasping for straws, refuse to believe you've been duped all your(really not yours if slaved for a god) life and craig has the best ? look up video-craig the humty dumpty.
Imagine if you come from an island, educated by common sense and survivalism, to be able to look at this from out of the box? Would this person think? A- Im missing the boat. B- These people are mentally handicapped. C- Run for the hills. D- All of the above.
You're right, Craig, we have to ask ourselves why we have the religion we do. So tell me, if you had been born in Pakistan do you think you still would be a Chriistian?
@Naiant You got it. thats all that matters. Your born atheist, the molding begins. Your always being watched,he knows if your bad or good, if your good you get the toys,virgins,into heaven. Santa,easter bunny,tooth fairy,alla,god,jesus. Everyone grew up to see through the early ones , then most of man failed to grow anymore because the religions were meant to keep you back,dont worry god will take care of it? Most religions frowned(death) upon anyone who could read or tried to interpet them.
Sure, but it could be any of several, and there's no way to know which one is... we can, however be sure that most of them aren't, at least as they are currently followed.
@TheTexanCanadian - Therefore, it's *possible* that Christianity is true and the rest are false. Have you even investigated the Bible's claims to see if what it says is true?
@flannister True Christianity cannot be true because the Bible is inherently contradictory. What people do is ignore several parts of the Bible which they don't personally agree with. Some people ignore some parts, other people reinterpret other parts. Other people add parts that are not in the Bible at all. That's why there are THOUSANDS of Christian denominations. They can't all be 100% right at the same time.
There are people alive today who claim to be god, have witnesses also alive today that claim these people have worked miracles, and yet these people are dismissed as liars and lunatics, while this character Jesus from 2000 years ago is somehow different. We have very little written material from this time, let alone live eyewitnesses, videos and original documents. I really think this is the heart of this whole irrational debate.
@gavincostin1 yep, thats exactly the point. all this hot air about science and origins is to somehow link a massive universe to the bible, a book, or whatever you preach. its so agendized and concoted its obscene but the sugar coating draws the masses like a tidal wave for guys like this to ride, and do they ever...
@cycophile These guys like Ray Comfort and John Lennox seem to work with the same tired argument, that there must be a god, because there must be a creator. And of course the Christian god, out of so many others is the correct one, and our particular species of homo sapiens, in this miniscule time period, is, was and always will be the centrepiece of the entire universe. Makes perfect sense.
Smartest thing I’ve ever heard WLC say. Unfortunately he only says it to give the appearance of being fair minded for as he says elsewhere: “If in some historically contingent circumstances, the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don’t think that that controverts (his own personal beliefs).” Or to paraphrase WLC is saying “I don't care what anyone says. I can’t be wrong.”
@DrMontague Have you disproved His existence? No. So the crux of the matter is, you can't defend your worldview, on the basis you set forth, from any number of criteria. I, as a believer, don't have to appeal to the ridiculous notion of placing God under a microscope, because truth is verifiable outside the empirical method, which is something you fail to grasp. You can't even support the most basic claims of your criticism let alone your worldview, which is why instead of conversing, you drone.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Theists claim god exists there it is for them to prove it. It is not for atheists to prove god doesn't exist as this would be akin to asking them to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist.You fail to grasp that if we don't use the empirical method then any bull shit can go i.e. there can be as many gods or supernatural beings as there have been people on the planet with imagination e.g. you believe in the one god when there could be an infinite number of gods, god could make gods, It gets pathetic
@DrMontague <Sigh. No, no it's not...the only thing you're demonstrating is that you can parrot the like of Dawkins and Hitchens. Empirical method, huh? So truth only arises as a result of the empirical method according to you, correct?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@NilDesperandum777 Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy so its certainly not the invention Dawkins or Hitchens as you imply. Again empircalism is the best method of inquirey when anyone makes a claim for the supernatural. If I were I to claim little purple elfs created the universe you would find it comica,l yet when we replace it with the claim of god/s it gets an aire of respect it doesn't deserve.
@DrMontague Never said it was the invention of Dawkins or Hitchens, as my inclusion of Nietszche eariler necessarily entails. So it's safe to say then, truth only arises as a result of the empirical method according to you, correct?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It would be easier for you to private message me if you are going to write half a dozen comments at a time. Let us get when thing straight, no philosopher has proven the existence of god. This is the reason the religious have to have Faith: i.e. belief without proof. (online dictionary)..The Old Testament unequivocally gives us god's laws e.g. stone to death gay and lesbians, So stop the crap that it is being misinterpreted.
@DrMontague And as I asked, and again ask....Which Judeo Christian countries, which western democratic countries practice stoning gays and lesbians presently? I realize by answering that question, you have to acknowledge that your premise is faulty...and that's the point. So by all means, be an adult, and answer the simple question. The next question, which I'll repeat, asks, where in Christian theology is the commandment given that all laws are forbidden to evolve through greater revelation?
@DrMontague And no I think it's important for you to respond here, as it provides me with a platform to demonstrate how flawed your thinking is. The scientific and the religious share elements of presuppositions, but WLC above lists some...I take it you havent actually listened to the video here? And to repeat AGAIN - the OT, is certainly fulfilled in the NT, which itself points to a further revealed and enhanced existence...Is the problem here that you are actually gay? Is that your crux?
@DrMontague If half a dozen comments at a time, with 500 characters (Not words - characters) proves too much, I fail to see how sending them compiled in PM form would alleviate your apparent struggles with reading anything over 2500 characters...That might explain where you problematic and selective scholarship stems from...If it cant be expressed under YT or Twitter constraints and fit into your immovable worldview where atheism, evil and God's non-existence, it must be rubbish, correct?
@DrMontague And asking you once more, in case the first request's follow-up is missed yet again...Can you please provide ANY theological or philosophical argument that agrees with your (Sorry, Christopher Hitcnes's) perspective, that the society of 4000 years ago, is the same society Christ advocates in the NT, or that those in theological charge under Him have advocated today...FYI: It was the finite human mind that erred...Not the infinite Love of Christ the Lord, who came as THE example.
I have had enough of you. The Old Testament clearly shows the evil actions and laws of your imaginary god . You have not proven god exists. If you you could then you would be on every news channel going. Therefore you are simply deluded.Full Stop.
@DrMontague Evidence exists, but the kind of emprical evidence you seek to to prove God's existence to you, is precisely the same kind of evidence you CANT produce to claim that He doesnt exist. That's a common philosophical reality. To engage in that line of conversation is fruitless. My concentration on you, has been everything else you've claimed. And the fact that you can't specifically defend one portion of it, SCREAMS that you dont have a clue what you're talking about (Cont..)
@DrMontague (From Cont...) And that, despite not owning up to the incompatible worldview you hold on to, you can't own up to any number of things that undermine your credibility as a sincere person of investigation. you havent owned up to Dawkins and Nietzsche's claim that in order for YOUR worldview to remain credible, evil must CEASE to exist. Your historical biblical citations are wrong and indefensible, and all you have is a 4000 year old wound that bears nothing to reality today. Good luck.
@NilDesperandum777 To sum up. You have not proved the existence of god. If you had you would be the greatest thinker this planet has ever known. Every academic /philosopher /scientist would hold you in awe. You would be world news and not simply typing comments on YouTube, yet you imply to the world that you have proved the existence of god. The only thing you have proven is that have a deluded brain and have delusions of grandeur.
@DrMontague The argument hasn't been my need to prove the existence of God. My thrust -- and I'm repeating myself over and over -- is that your criticism, is invalid from a philosophical and theological perspective because it doesn't make sense. You may feel that the burden of proof for the believer is to prove according to empirical requirements alone, but that's simply not reality. You can feel all you like, but it's evidential that you dont understand basic concepts. (Cont...)
@DrMontague (From Cont...) To sum it up: You can't even answer the basic -- no proof required -- question, as to how your personal worldview as an atheist corresponds with that of Dawkins and Nietszche who state, in order for YOUR worldview and theirs to make logical sense, insists that evil shouldnt exist...How do you reconcile this fact, "Dr." ? It speaks to your criticism...Just answer ONCE on this subject...Can't you? Probably not. you havent yet, and read as though you wouldnt know...
Quote: Some advice: You shoulď be worried for calling good, evil and evil good Unquote I am not the one doing that you are! Your god is evil he created the earth which can bring forth natural disasters and diseases and then people like you claim your god is an intelligent creator! You imply that all Islam is evil. Read the history of Christianity there is plenty of atrocities commuted by the church. When the going gets tough simply imly that god idn't give evil laws to Moses.
DrMontage does not believe in God yet really he does believe in God,
Dr montage says God drowned babies in the flood, and burnt witches alive and stoned lesbians and gays, If God does not exist, how could God have done any of the things you say he has done, You do believe in God and it's obvious! so just be honest and say you hate God and know he exists.
Yet Dr montage has not seen God do any of these evil things but he acuses God of doing them, anyway.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This man is deluded. The simple answer is that human beings have evolved imagination and therefore can delude themselves. The evidence for delusion is that several cultures can have different religions. Each deluded culture either by persuasion or force try to get others to accept their delusion.
@DrMontague And yet the human faculty of delusion didn't prompt basic survival mechanisms when apostles and martyrs alike suffered persecution, loss of family, perpetual torture unto excruciating death? And for those Christians whose scientific achievements (Newton, Clerk Maxwell...) and intellectual capacity surely surpass yours and mine, and would be better equipped to determine a reasonable definition of "delusion" in the face of said questioned evidence...Have they also missed "the simple" ?
@NilDesperandum777 1 of 2. Only a sentient beings can be deluded. This is the reason humans are not prisoners of instinct. e.g. a mother or father might run into a burning house to try and save their child and die i n the process. Let me ask you this: were pagans deluded.? They suffered at the hand of Christians but were prepared to die . be tortured and lose their families to hold onto their religious belief i.e.of nature worship.
@DrMontague Not prionsers" per se (apart from psychiatric conditions), however, impulse is a very strong engine. And I'd be careful, by the way...C.Hitchens has used "instinct" to describe moral and ethical motivations in argument against Source...Delusion is predicated on belief, and belief on evidence, so the question would arise from a 21st century apprehension based on evidence. Is there evidence for a being called Thor? No. Is there evidence for a man known as Jesus Christ? Yes. (Cont..)
( From Cont...) So based on one pagan culture or another, we could reasonably say, that yes, they were, and some are, deluded, given a lack of evidence. Now, this doesn't remove the reality that some professing Christians arent deluded in their interpretation (ie Mormons, JW...). The difference is, early followers, the apostles,disciples, LIVED with this man, who made certain claims and performed certain acts and was party to certain events that are verifiable in history. (Cont #2...)
(From Cont 2) C.S. Lewis wrote on the subject , "When Myth Became Fact" addressing this very scenario. To tie the conversation together, men who defined the scientific method, who invented disciplines of it, would surely understand the difference between real myth and real fact, and how evidence applies to either. So while yes they could be "deluded", based on what we know of them, they, the definition of logical,empirical, see evidence for Christ's claims and not e.g. "Zeus's"
@NilDesperandum777 I'm am not denting that there was a man called Jesus Christ. However the Jesus story was manipulated by the council of Nicea 324 AD. They they omitted equally valid gospels that showed Jesus is a different light e.g. Infancy Gospel of Thomas. They also made Mary Magdalene a prostitute because they didn't want women to be see as having power. The Jesus story also borrows from the Mithra the Persian god of light and wisdom whose birth was witnessed by shepherds. .
@DrMontague Mm...That's not so. Certainly Christ's claims, divinity, fact of resurrection werent "manipulated", and as to G.Of.T, it was omitted from Canon on the basis of it's inconsistency and lack of integrity. It was a 2nd C. concoction as opposed to the source material in the 4 Gospels. And where exactly did you read in the NT that Mary Magdelene was called a prostitute? (Cont.)
@DrMontague As to Mithra and his birth story...Interestingly enough, Mithra was reputed to have been born out of a rock,fully grown and never mirrored any of the pertinent events Christ actually lived in His life. The birth story of Mithra only changed until AFTER the Gospel account of Christ's birth. So Mithraism didn't affect Christianity in that fashion what so ever...Do you have a response to these corrections?
Virgin births we find plenty of them in Greek mythology along with the great flood stories. It appears that CS Lewis didn't do his research as regards the Jesus Christ story. Further if Jesus was god incarnate then he is the same god of the Old Testament i.e. the evil one who drowned babies and children in his flood and give his law unto Moses that gay and lesbians should be stone to death, and women who are found not to be virgins on their wedding night should be burnt alive.
@DrMontague Uhm...C.S. TAUGHT myth as a Phd, and certainly was aware of any mythological inconsistency or similarity, and in the essay mentioned posits that nothing in antiquity establishes through experience and artifact the same actual evidence that Christianity provided. That's the point. The others were myth, Christ, fact. Your other criticisms, aren't a criticism against the existence of God, merely your subjective opinion of His morality and the record of the OT, which is contestable.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@NilDesperandum777 2 of 2. The eminent scientists you mention can also be deluded. Having a brilliant mind for science doesn't mean you cannot have a psychological yearning for a creator god. Newton et al have not proven the existence of supernatural beings. It was with Darwin that the view of our place in the universe began change. Even Darwin was denounced by both the religious and the scientists of his day.
@DrMontague So you calling Isaac Newton and Pascal Deluded? hmm i think you'll find more people thought those things in mass about Darwin but there you go....You talk about proving things...What has darwin done? he has proven nothing infact their is more leaps of faith in his material than anywhere else...same with all atheists. Guys like Newton cover aspects of science with logic that show an intelligent Designer / God is responsible for all this due to the complex order in nature + perfection.
@SHAOLINSINZ Darwin set the ball in motion as regards evolutionary theory. He didn't actually prove beyond doubt in his life time, he stated that he would have yo leave to future scientists to prove his theory. DNA was the break through. Evolutionary theory is now the cornerstone of modern biology , it is our royal road to ridding humanity of the horrendous diseases that can afflict us. The diseases the god you believe in created in the first place. He such a nice supernatural being!
@DrMontague Its been proven that bacteria, even diseases have their place in killing things which could further destroy us...Other diseases out their are made by men in Labratories.
Darwin said himself in his own words he was use to making fools experiments he also said himself evolution was based off a huge leap of faith and assumption in Macro evolution and plenty of other factors. It is also PROVABLE that Darwin was into Luciferian occult teachings thats why the corrupt masons love him.
@DrMontague I don't know if I would agree. Now...understand, I don't argue against evolution, nor do I see being a Christian as being oppositional to evolution, for the simple reason that I dont view faith as being incompatible with reason and in so many instances witness one enhancing the other. I believe Darwin was another step in terms of possibly enhancing our knowledge of our surroundings, but who's to say that given discoveries in science that said evidence wouldnt enhance his faith? Cont.
From Cont...To say WLC is deluded, would be false given the philosophical justification he asserts for belief in God. Now remember, the atheist position is the statement of fact that there is no God, not that the disbelieve in His existence. A question to you: Is Richard Dawkins deluded when he identifies the possibility of a "Creator/Higher Power" as being an alien race, while dismissing the philosophical and theological definition of God outright?
@DrMontague From Cont...To say WLC is deluded, would be false given the philosophical justification he asserts for belief in God. Now remember, the atheist position is the statement of fact that there is no God, not that the disbelieve in His existence. A question to you: Is Richard Dawkins deluded when he identifies the possibility of a "Creator/Higher Power" as being an alien race, while dismissing the philosophical and theological definition of God outright? (Apologies for the repeat)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@NilDesperandum777 If we are the product of an alien race then they too would be the product of their universe not the creators of it. They too would have evolved. The would not be omniscient and omnipotent. We have no evidence that an alien race created our universe and us. it is purely speculative thinking. we can though ask similar questions e.g. why is this alien race are they evil and sadistic just just as the theists gods are.
@DrMontague That's not the point of the question I asked you...The point is, if Dawkins or you or anyone else is appealing to an empircal model for everything, then the same standard has to be applied. Thus, if Dawkins believes God is irrational because he's never seen Him, but is willing to intellectually ascend to the reality of an alien race starting "everything" then that flies in the face of the defined criteria, for the simple reason, that Dawkins hasnt seen this alien race either...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@NilDesperandum777 You have missed the point completely. We know that when the Spanish conquered the Americas that the natives believed them to be gods. Of course we know they were not . The Spanish had no supernatural powers. If aliens (hypothetically) created the universe they too do not possess supernatural powers as they too would have evolved in their own universe. They would have the technological know how but not supernatural powers.
@DrMontague Im not missing the point, respectfully you are...The point is this, Dawkins states there is no God. He states he doesnt know how the Universe came to be. When asked to speculate, one of the possibilities is an alien civilization. In essence, both the civilization and God have not been seen by Dawkins, and yet he, the atheist, is willing to BELIEVE it's possible an alien race (Outside space and time) created the universe, but a "God" (defined as being outside space and time) couldnt.
@DrMontague So if it is possible on the basis of pure speculation that one reason is possible while another for the same reason isn't, it's a little prejudicial, and thus unscientific, wouldnt you agree? I'd like to know your opinion on the corrections and your conclusions concerning, Mithra,G.O.Thomas,etc...And can you please provide where you read in the New Testament, where Mary Magdelene was called a prostitute? Thanks
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@NilDesperandum777 I never stated the bible said Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. I said the Council of Nicea AD324 began to give her this image.' Pope Gregory the Great made this assumption official by declaring in a sermon that these three characters were actually the same person: The Catholic Church did later declare that Mary Magdalene was not the penitent sinner, but this was not until 1969. After several centuries, the reputation still lingers'.( Source)I'll private message the website.
@DrMontague That's a three century difference, but further, it in no way substantiates anything else that youve claimed. And certainly not that it was the intent of the Church (Theologically speaking) to undermine women in their place in the salvific economy. The Virgin Mary is considered the penultimate example of humanity, and emphasis on the superior actions of women during Christ's last moments are oft repeated because of the sharp contrast to the actions of the (male) apostles.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@NilDesperandum777 Answer my questions first I have done enough of answering yours. Your god evil and sadistic and not at very clever when it comes to making planets. Explain.Your a joke. Women have been repressed for thousands of years. The council was against women having power. Mary Magdalen was seen as having power unheard of, therefore they had to defame her. This became the official teaching of the RC Church. Again answer my questions. I have answered plenty of yours.
YOU are the evil one here, as you beleive in God because you hate God so much, If God did not exist as you know He does than there would be nothing to hate.
@DrMontague Sure, no problem. But I'll begin by pointing out that your integrity is clearly suspect because you refuse to own up to the errors you contend as fact. It doesn't matter, because as is clear, I've corrected those errors, so whether you behave in a mature fashion and own up to them is up to you. I know you don't know what you're talking about, and now you know I know, and that's a satisfaction in it's own right. Now to your questions and comments...
@DrMontague By definition, God is neither evil nor sadistic. Any trained philosopher that understands The Problem of Evil, and the necessary attributes of God understands this. Now, if you say that there is no God, you contradict yourself for the simple reason that morality depends on a moral law giver. Evil depends on the existence of Good, if something is evil, it must be in opposition to what is The Good, thus, you cannot have evil without good and good without God. That's the simple version.
@DrMontague "And not very clever when it comes to making planets..." Well, lol...Best to way to answer that statement is: How are your interstellar creations coming along?
@DrMontague Women have been OPPRESSED, true. But Christ, and Christianity has done more for the empowerment of women than any other ideology. Scripture is rife with it's record of women made prominent, none more than The Virgin Mary. First to receive salvation, a human being given grace beyond measure, considered human perfection. The women at the cross, the women who were given first after firsts....Maybe you should be on an Islamic thread with your opinion about oppression and women instead?
@DrMontague Your point on Mary Magdelene is complete nonsense. Theologically it makes no impact, bears nothing against the core import of Christian theology and is completely inaccurate..."Mary Magdelene was seen as having power unheard of..." Are you getting your information from movies like "Stigmata" or something? There's a reason, that the Apoc. writings were omitted from the canon, because as a document from historical credibility and theological considerations, they're deficient. Got it?
@Ni Dawkins hasn't claimed that aliens are responsible for the creation because we have no proof. only that it might be possible. It is only a speculation. It will remain speculation unless it is proven. I have already given you the analogy/ parallel of the Spanish conquistadors. This is totally different position to theists who claim that they definitely know that there is a supernatural being i.e. god is is behind the creation but offer no proof. Aliens would not be supernatural beings.
@DrMontague I never said he did claim that that was the theory, I said he speculated that it was possible, which flies in the face of his conclusion that there is no God, demonstrating his militant atheism and extreme prejudice, not to mention ignorance, but intellectually ascending to something that would require more belief than it would to believe in a rational hypothesis that something cant come from nothing, and must have a starting point ie a Being outside space and time ie God.
@NilDesperandum777 BTW you ask a lot of questions which I answer but you never answer mine. Why is your god a cowboy when it comes to planet making e.g. . natural disaster and diseases. And why is he evil and sadistic laying down his law to Moses e,g. that gay and lesbians should be stoned to death. Women found not to be virgins on their wedding night should be burnt alive. The god of the New Testament is the same god as in the Old Testament. Explain why he is evil.
@DrMontague I ask questions (That you've yet to answer) in sequence as they arise. I don't ask them as a means of deflection when the questions posed undermine my credibility as you're now attempting to do but continuing not to account for your incorrect conclusions ie Mithra, G.Of.Thomas, Dawkins,etc...As for an explanation for God being evil, simply put, he's not, and cannot be evil. As for the rest...When you account for your errors with explanation, I'll be more than happy to answer yours.
@NilDespera Drowning babies and children in a flood is not evil?! Wanting gay and lesbians stoned to death is not evil!? Wanting women burnt alive is not evil. Making a planet that bring forth natural disasters and disease is not evil?If I did those things you would call me evil. When your god demands it you call him merciful. loving,compassionate etc. Then you get on your knees and worship him. !Like Craig you actually have a touch of insanity. One thing you have in common you worship evil.
If it was not for GOd you yourself would not exist,
You mock God so much because you do believe in God as i can see because you hate God so much and you cannot hate something unless you know for a fact it is there and REAL.
God is real and you know God is Real.
Get with it Dr Montage!
You believe in God its so obivious, Yet you hate God.
@DrMontague Permissive Will and Perfect Will. Feel free to pull yourself away from Dan Brown novels, and Christianity made simple by atheists and actually read up on the terms. As for gay punishment...The only places in the world that still practice said punishments, are neither Judeo nor Christian. And in the meantime, as has been traditional, Theological interpretations have EVOLVED, and likely in line with God's LOVING, PERFECT WILL. As to inhospitable planets...(Cont...)
@NilDesperandum777 So god didn't give his laws to Moses which some stated that he wanted gays and lesbians stoned to death? The bible is therefore wrong? Or god change his mind about wanting gays and lesbians stoned to death? Therefore god is imperfect! He sounds very human indeed to me . I have to keep reminding you on that Jesus was god incarnate. He is the same god of the old testament. The evil one. Unless he went for psychiatric treatment and is now a reformed character.
@DrMontague From Cont...) And in fact, actually enhances the case that humanity and God's revelation are inextricably linked to a relationship where God's Truths become known to man over time. Is God imperfect? Impossible. But human minds attempting to grasp the infinite are. What other sense could be made for example of the Jewish sacrifice. OT, animals are sacrificed, strict legalism > NT, charity,mercy,justic over blood...Did God change His mind, or did He correct the interpretation? (Cont..)
@DrMontague (From Cont..) As to inhosptiable planets...Your ability to input empty responses and critiques, doesnt seem to be greatly affected by them now does it? Why suffering exists and why it needs to in the here and now is a question only God will be able to answer....But the promise of Christ, is that He will do so in a reality beyond compare and beyond anything you can imagine, and the price for that existence Forever? Pain,Joy everything in between and a love for the One who created you.
@NilDesperandum777 Suffering exists because there is no god and we are the product of an evolutionary universe If you claim there is a god then he has to be is evil and sadistic. The old testament states clearly why god allows suffering, it's all because Eve ate a piece of fruit. So god said for doing that all mankind will now suffer. It didn't cross his dumb brain that it was himself who planted the tree there and that it was he who created Lucifer. How pathetic.
@DrMontague Nope...You don't get to choose that A) God doesn't exist, and that B) Evil exists because God made it, even as you attempt to qualify it in poor comedy that suffering exists BECAUSE there is no God. If that's your reality, then you're definitively delusional. And here's the best part, Dawkins (Like F.Neitzsche before him) surmised in order for an atheistic worldview to make sense, that "Evil" must not exist, which would place ALL your criticisms of God as nothing. (Cont...)
@DrMontague (From Cont...) It would also necessarily draw your conclusions about the "good" of the atheistic worldview into question, when two of its "brightest lights" consider "Evil" a philosophical problem, in order for their worldview to exist in philosophically manageable terms. It's how Stalin could philosophically justify the Great Purges, or Hitler and his Eugenics, or any other number of atheist regimes, because all of them knew "If God doesnt exist, everything is permitted."(Cont...)
@DrMontague (From Cont..) So if you're attempting to make sense of your own worldview -- which makes ZERO sense -- you need to choose which philosophical camp fits you best, because your buffet style argumentation makes "sense" only behind a keyboard. In person, you wouldnt have a corner to hide in. Case in point? Your synopsis of C.Hitchens of the Creator creating us sick and demanding that we heal ourselves...Sorry, you don't get to use that either while maintaining Evil exists (Cont...)
@DrMontague (From Cont...) Now you may be saying, "Well of course I can pick and choose what I like." Yeah, you can, but it doesnt make it right, and the evidence you present, confirms as much. As to using the humanity of Christ as a "reminder"...I'm not sure what you think you're achieving...Is it to say, that despite Christ's unparalleled goodness, He was a fraud because you think the OT God is one way, and Christ another? Well, that doesn't hold up to exegesis, and in fact...(Cont...)
@DrMontague (From Cont...) And that's but one inconsistency that could be expanded upon. So if you want pick ANY consistent philosophical position, I'll argue any one with you. If you feel like your emotional concoction of personal theology is justifiable, then by all means, savor your sense of self-importance and reject verifiable facts. It's been said, never let facts get in the way of a good argument, and that's exactly what you're doing as an operating worldview. (Cont...)
@DrMontague (Last Cont...) So now that you're questions have been answered, you have a number of known errors to own up to. But the one I'm most interested in hearing is you defending Dawkins and Nietszche's position that in order for the Atheistic Worldview to exist and thrive, that the concept of Evil needs to be removed...Given your obsession of identifying it, does this then mean, that the foundational leaders of your worldview are not only wrong and deluded, but themselves, evil?
@NilDesperandum777 You haven't answered any of my questions you have evaded them. Theists keep on claiming that the supernatural they believe in is merciful, compassionate and forgiving. I have shown that his actions are evil. My arguments are good this is the reason you don't like that particular path of reasoning. You keep on claiming god's truths. Wait you haven't proven there is a god! In fact god's evil in the Old Testament led one philosopher to argue that there were TWO gods!
@DrMontague It's all there, what you call evasion, is actually clarification, it's just not emotionally appealing to your particularly peculiar worldview. You can't both believe God does not exist and, that suffering is a result of His existence. All you've "shown" is that you can misrepresent biblical exegesis, and what I have claimed, that you're conclusions are wrong (Mithra, Dawkins,etc) you're not addressing correction is evidence you simply dont have a developed position. (Cont...)
@NilDesp You have clarified sweet all. I'm an atheist trying to demonstrate how deluded your brain is. What I mean when I talk of god is your imaginary god. You keep on claiming he is merciful etc. If the old Testament is god's inspiration as theists claim then how should passages in which he wants Gays and lesbians stoned to death be interpreted.?This is god's law given to Moses. So what does this really mean? How can this be taken out of context?! Why was this never mentioned in RE classes?
@DrMontague I have, you just dont recognize the importance of the points made, and that's delusional ie, in spite of evidence, you still "don't get it". Couple of points you need -- in addition to others - reconsider 1) OT isn't God's inspiration,OT is humanity's understanding - at the time - of God's inspiration. 2) Homosexuality is a very minor point of consideration in either of today's theology, made evident by it's LACK of address in the NT, and present day commentaries (Cont...)
@DrMontague (From Cont...) Judeo Christian, Western Democratic civilization, which bears the mark of the judeo Christian Ethos is BY FAR the most merciful society in the history of mankind, the problem isn't J/C Ethics, it's man's inhumanity to man, manifested best by Social Darwinism, ie Eugenics which is necessarily, Atheistic. 3) NAME ONE western Democratic, Judeo Christian country, where stoning ANYONE is permitted let alone prescribed. 4) The example of God's mercy is the person of...(Cont)
@DrMontague (From Cont.) ...is the person of Jesus Christ, where the rights of the alien, the disenfranchised, the irreligious, the marginalized of society, were never more highlighted, acted upon and clarified to the point that forgiveness was brought to a seemingly self-destructive level...So if that definition of mercy escapes me, then what you're engaged in is either A) A game, where any evidence wont ever be enough or B) Your ill, and can't see evidence for what it is...(Cont 3)
@DrMontague (From Cont 3) So how have you taken "God's law" out of context? 1) You've taken it out of time and social understanding from thousands of years to go to today. 2) By importance. Mercy and it's effect on homosexual acceptance might be the pivotal issue for you, but in the context of God's mercy personified in Christ, it's virtually a non-issue. Again, what time and place are you living in?3) The issue of evil and the atheist...You have to state why you believe in evil...(Cont. 4..)
@DrMontague (From Cont 4) So as an atheist, you must be choosing the second option I offered to you: That God doesn't exist, but that evil simply exists, because suffering does, and suffering is observable, therefore...So a couple of necessary points then: You dont have a grasp on moral requirements/arguments, so you using your misinformation about God, is a non-starter. What is an issue here is your lack of the EXISTENCE of EVIL given you acknowledge it exists. So...(Cont 5)
@DrMontague (From Cont 5) So...Why do you disagree with Dawkins and Nietzsche that in order for the Atheistic worldview to remain viable and integral to itself, evil must not exist...What is your answer to that? Why do you -- when Dawkins and Nietzsche state otherwise -- believe in the existence of evil as an atheist who proclaims that there is no God? Not answering this essentially constitutes that you simply have no idea why you believe, what you believe.
@NilDesperandum777 God's laws were clearly stated in the Old Testament, whether they were written last week or 4000 yrs ago is irrelevant. This is what your god demanded. Jesus is supposedly god incarnate (this was agreed by the council of Nicea AD 324). This is the same god as in The Old Testament who demanded vengeance. It appears he has had a change of heart i.e. he got things wrong. Therefore god was first evil then sets out to be the good guy. He is a reformed character!
@DrMontague Wrong again. Christ's divinity wasn't "established" in Nicea, anymore than Christianity began in 324 AD. The core doctrine of Christianity was enumerated in what certainly was the oral forerunner of the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed. At the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, a document from apporx. 36 AD confirms as much, but again, dont let facts get in the way of your argument.
@DrMontague (From Cont..) So which is it, does God exist and is the cause of evil or that God doesn't exist and evil simply exists because suffering exists and suffering exists because" that's the way it is " Be mature and responsible enough to pick the one position you believe in Dr. M, and we'll continue from there.
@DrMontague So, you can feel free to stand in 3000 year interpretational confusion soaked mud, but the rest of the theological Judeo Christian world is busy attempting to create societies that fight against man's inhumanity to man (ie Islam) on the basis of those ethics laid out in Scripture.The NT, is an answer to the confusion present in the OT, which is outlined as clear, which you either dont know or fail to provide...Some advice: You should be worried for calling good, evil and evil, good.
I have been debating Dr Montage on another page where if he cannot get his way he will insult you then block you from putting comments onto his video pages.
One is dr Richard Dakins proves the exiestince of God, Its a mock God video
The Gospel of Barnabas is far more authentic than any writing in the Bible, except for James. As far as the question "How did the tomb become empty?" is concerned, the individual who was crucified was buried in the tomb and his body was stolen overnight by mischievous people who spread lies about Jesus' resurrection. That explanation fits a whole lot better than the one in the Bible. Jesus ascended before those bloodthirsty jews could have him crucified.
@badpanda84 He does that too...But Atheists are taken seriously in the academic and mainstream so why not expose the people who have the Nerve to call themself 'The Brights' but can't even back their argument...
So he agrees with most atheist then -- all religion cant be true . But of course since WLC grew up in a western "christain" country he will alway be bias toward Christianity. I doubt william lane craig has researched all the worlds religions.
@badpanda84 Thats totally ignorant to assume because of the part of the world he's from that is why he selected Christianity....Shows the average intellect of assuming atheists.
Thats totally ignorant to assume because of the part of the world he's from that is why he selected Christianity.."
that is how the most people "select" a religion and it is a fair assumption.. He would not be a Christian if he grew up in Pakistan in a strict Muslim family..
@SHAOLINSINZ By in large where and when you are born determines the type of gods you will believe in. My niece being a white and born and bred in the Uk has become a Christian. Why? because the Uk is largely perceived as a Christian country. If she had have been born in the middle east she more than likely would have been engulfed by Islam and therefore educated to be a Muslim. If time and place didn't effect your religious belief then would see no pattern all!
@DrMontague Can i just say that its not an argument to say something is less true because certain people grow up in an area and because its the main thing in that area they end up believing it....I live in the UK and i can tell you straight people here are not Christian and there is not many true Christians here at all, Most people have no beliefs here.
You are not taking into consdiration the endless people that find God as an intelligent critically thinking Adult....
@SH I was born and bred in the Uk. You are correct that in that the Uk is growing up and becoming more secular. However if you were to go back a in history a couple hundred years in the UK you would find most people would call themselves a Christian. It was the dominant religion. If time and place didn't affect which religion you would turn to then you wouldn't expect to see a pattern. There would be Muslims,Christians etc in equal amounts. Most people still turn back to their cultural faith.
@supermarioworld9000 jews deny the divinity the divinity (and virgin birth) of jesus and the tripersonal god. some jews even deny the existence of an afterlife. plus by your standards muslims are right too because their's is an extended history from the jews. In fact muslims are closer to jews than christains are, muslims just have a few extra profits and a virgin birth
@badpanda84 Isn't that what Atheism Claims too? Religion is no different to Atheism, Agnosticism or any of them, They all think their Right...Fact is one has the Evidence backing it from all angles and That's Christ if you know ANYTHING about the Roman empire and how badly they've tried to cover up the life of Jesus, desecrate his words and make people hard a Hardened heart against God by infiltrating all mainstream Religions.
@SHAOLINSINZ Evolutionary theory is not a religion it is a science. We wouldn't class astronomy , or cosmology a religion. Because evolutionary theory tread heavily on the toes of the biblical view of creation there has been a tendency by the religious to accuse it of being a religion. Yes the The council of Nicea AD 324 under the direction of the emperor Constantine give us the Jesus story accepted today. They turned Mary Magdalene in to a prostitute and remove equally valid gospels.
@DrMontague Atheism is a world view and has as much as Christianity has in terms of values, outlooks on life etc claiming to have the correct understanding of how the earth came about.
Religious people don't accuse evolutionists of believing a religion i just think their ignorant...as Dr Craig says the Evolution theory actually backs the existence of an intelligent designer ironically...Evolution does not explain morality for one.
As for Council of Nicea it came about long before then.
The Jesuits, Roman Bloodlines and the Pope never worshipped Jesus or God they actually worship Lucifer/Satan (deceiver) which is why they created the Roman Catholic church which intertwines heretical teachings and Egyptian eastern mysticism into its doctrine. The fact is if you don't understand Constantine Killed 200 million Christians in one of the largest persecutions of Christians in an attempt to destroy the TRUE teachings of Jesus held in Christianity then your missing the bigger picture
@Kodiaksaint "Therefore,they cannot both be the same religion."
I think they can be the same in their roots.
For example if Mohammed did talked with the angel and if Jesus was the son of God, if those things really happen as they are told and later on interpretations, opinions and cultural influences affected the way we see those facts.
Our interpretations can't be both true but they can be both partially true.
@naujphantom Hmm... interesting point. But how can they be the same in thier roots? The root of Christianity, the very foundation, is based upon the belief that Jesus is God incarnate. Islam rejects this belief and claims that he was merely a prophet.
@Kodiaksaint "Islam rejects this belief and claims that he was merely a prophet."
Yes, but where in the Quran says so?
If, and only if the Quran doesn't literally say so then that belief is an interpretation.
In my humble opinion it could be motivated by not wanting to have Jesus above Mohamed, maybe and only maybe, I don't want to offend anyone by saying this.
@naujphantom Indeed, interpretations can have an effect on how the ideas were viewed. However, does that pardon flat out doctrinal contradictions? While seperate interpretations can be similar, it is not the similaries that matter but the differences. A cat and a dog both have hair and four legs, but the similarities are not what is important. Isn't it the same with belief systems?
@Kodiaksaint Even in Christianity there are many churches, and many have also flat our doctrinal contradictions. But to talk about doctrinal contradictions is to talk about branches and not about the root.
You gave me the example of a cat and a dog, I have a cat and a dog and they get along well but we could pick another example like a terrier and a labrador.
@naujphantom I'm sorry, I should have been more clear in my phrasing. When I said doctrinal contradictions, I meant as it pertains to essential doctrine.Yes, churches disagree in many periphreal issues, such as baptism, but these beliefs are not fundamental doctrine of the Christianity.I'm refering to the debated identity of Christ. Whereas doctrinal contradictions can mean differences like a terrier and labrador, doesn't fundamental doctrinal differentiation denote entirely different "species"?
Wow--I didn't think I would ever find a clip where I agreed with everything WLC had to say in the clip. But this is exactly right--theists need to ask themselves why they believe what they do. The truth is--most of them believe as they do because they were indoctrinated as children, and their parents and community believe in their religion. Most theists are indeed self-deluded. The huge number of gods and religions, and why people believe--this is a massive problem for religion.
DandAinTac 14 hours ago
So if Jesus is God in the flesh then he sacrificed himself to himself.........hmmm........I get it now....
enyskept 16 hours ago
The most logical explanation considering none of the have any physical empirical evidence is that they are ALL wrong and ALL of the zealots truly are self deluded.
riothero313 23 hours ago
@yesyou, uh.... They are both mythical and believed to exist by the gullible. Calling me a moron shows you have no argument.
Einsteinian99 2 weeks ago
This guy is a third rate debater. People don't want to debate him because he is exasperating! Asserts so many false premises then argues from that false beginning. Only people without a valid argument stoop to these tactics. Dawkins does not want to debate crackpots because he does not want it to appear that nutty beliefs are valid or have credence. That would be like me debating a 6 year old on santa's existence.
Einsteinian99 1 month ago
@Einsteinian99 Your statement shows what a moron you are. What is the connection between Santa Claus and God?
YesYou123333 2 weeks ago
The answer came there none
daverigby23 1 month ago
Evidence of the existence of God
watch?v=Vl12NtmqMYQ
watch?v=0xXgsndwxD4&feature=channel_video_title
watch?v=4wV0vV5Hrp0&feature=related
watch?v=BXiNXDDdaK8&feature=related
watch?v=azAOtB65Td0&feature=related
watch?v=RjKGlNVmnqc&feature=related
ThePero20111 1 month ago
Of course they can't all be right. That is logical. However, that does not preclude that they can all be right for each person. This is not a black and white discussion. Each person believes what they wish because we are individuals and not of a hive mind. As such, our world is defined by our experiences. As they differ, so do our beliefs. To say that yours is the only correct one is sheer arrogance regardless of what someone said in a book. Open your minds! Blessings to all! =)
joshthepagan 3 months ago
@joshthepagan Religion is nothing more than a geographical construct. It's completely random. If you're born in one place you are that religion and if you're born in another you a another religion. If any of them where actually true it would have an even distribution across the globe because it would be universally accepted and undeniable. Apparently none of the superstitions are that powerful though.
riothero313 23 hours ago
This is kid stuff. WL Craig proclaims "religious relativism may not be true after all". He goes on to say that it is "logically inconsistent and therefore cannot be true", blah, blah, blah.
He does get points for his admission "christianity could be wrong" (it almost certainly is wrong)
Some creationists call this guy "a great philosopher". He's a 1st rate christian apologist/sophist and 3rd rate philosopher
gangster3591 4 months ago
@gangster3591 lol yeah who destroyed atheist left and right and physic dr. krauss lol even richard dwakins cowards it will not debate mr. craig. btw he converted over 15 hard-headed atheist. repent of your sins. watch mr. craig...listen!
MegaGangstaparadise 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MegaGangstaparadise .."lol yeah who destroyed atheist left and right and physic dr. krauss lol even richard dwakins cowards it will not debate mr. craig. btw he converted over 15 hard-headed atheist. repent of your sins. watch mr. craig...listen!"?
Appreciation for your comment Mr Paradise. Frankly, I don't need advice from people who write nonsense, particularly at grade school level
gangster3591 3 months ago
This is kid stuff. WL Craig proclaims "religious relativism may not be true after all". He goes on to say that it is "logically inconsistent and therefore cannot be true", blah, blah, blah.
He does get points for his admission "christianity could be wrong" (it almost certainly is wrong)
Some creationists call this guy "a great philosopher". He's a 1st rate christian apologist/sophist, and 3rd rate philosopher
gangster3591 4 months ago
So what is his argument for Christianity being the one true religion?? ??
linkmymuffin 4 months ago
Prove it...
mjlopez85 4 months ago
'We could both be wrong' - yes you ARE both wrong. All religions are false.
MrJohndl 5 months ago
W. Craig embracing logic? I'm impressed. Now he should apply it to his religion.
gininginin 5 months ago
So why is he a chirstain??-- all the reglion can't possibly be true -- but they can all be false.
this is one of Darwkins main points.. there are many relgions out there.. what are the odds that you were born in the country which just happens to worship the right God.
badpanda84 5 months ago
Comment removed
badpanda84 5 months ago
He is a pro at debating for who ever pays him, if you call that debating with no science even though he is a science guy? When did talking in circles become science?When your going down and grasping for straws, refuse to believe you've been duped all your(really not yours if slaved for a god) life and craig has the best ? look up video-craig the humty dumpty.
darttoyou1 5 months ago
Imagine if you come from an island, educated by common sense and survivalism, to be able to look at this from out of the box? Would this person think? A- Im missing the boat. B- These people are mentally handicapped. C- Run for the hills. D- All of the above.
darttoyou1 5 months ago
You're right, Craig, we have to ask ourselves why we have the religion we do. So tell me, if you had been born in Pakistan do you think you still would be a Chriistian?
Naiant 5 months ago
@Naiant can the same not be said for atheism???
blackoutninja 5 months ago
@Naiant You got it. thats all that matters. Your born atheist, the molding begins. Your always being watched,he knows if your bad or good, if your good you get the toys,virgins,into heaven. Santa,easter bunny,tooth fairy,alla,god,jesus. Everyone grew up to see through the early ones , then most of man failed to grow anymore because the religions were meant to keep you back,dont worry god will take care of it? Most religions frowned(death) upon anyone who could read or tried to interpet them.
darttoyou1 5 months ago
I find this video difficult to masturbate to.
ChrisSchoolMaster 6 months ago
Craig looks like Steve Carell in this vid. Figures.....after all, listening to Craig defend Christianity does border on the comedic.
TryTheRedPill 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
Jesus died for our sins
Buddha brought understanding and the path to peace
Odin lives among the nine worlds
Zeus fought the Titans
Osirus promised eternal life in his kingdom
...they're all myth and were all birthed by animism
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
Comment removed
Amitaruci1 7 months ago
Wow... In the last lines of Craig, he just rebutted everything about religion: Self Delusion through unreasonable logic
eldrinirdle 7 months ago
Can all religions be true? No...
Can all religions be false? Yes...
End of story.
TheTexanCanadian 7 months ago
Comment removed
flannister 5 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian - I agree with both those statements but isn't it possible that just *one* religion is true?
flannister 5 months ago
@flannister
Sure, but it could be any of several, and there's no way to know which one is... we can, however be sure that most of them aren't, at least as they are currently followed.
TheTexanCanadian 5 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian - Therefore, it's *possible* that Christianity is true and the rest are false. Have you even investigated the Bible's claims to see if what it says is true?
flannister 5 months ago
@flannister True Christianity cannot be true because the Bible is inherently contradictory. What people do is ignore several parts of the Bible which they don't personally agree with. Some people ignore some parts, other people reinterpret other parts. Other people add parts that are not in the Bible at all. That's why there are THOUSANDS of Christian denominations. They can't all be 100% right at the same time.
gininginin 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flannister "I agree with both those statements but isn't it possible that just *one* religion is true? "
Maybe but William Criag might make a good case for being a theist -- but not a good case for being a chirstain
badpanda84 5 months ago
That which can be asserted without evidence can likewise be dismissed without evidence
so people believing keep on believing and people not believing keep on not believing. thats all that needs to be said
CookieAddictBeaner 8 months ago
There are people alive today who claim to be god, have witnesses also alive today that claim these people have worked miracles, and yet these people are dismissed as liars and lunatics, while this character Jesus from 2000 years ago is somehow different. We have very little written material from this time, let alone live eyewitnesses, videos and original documents. I really think this is the heart of this whole irrational debate.
gavincostin1 8 months ago
@gavincostin1 yep, thats exactly the point. all this hot air about science and origins is to somehow link a massive universe to the bible, a book, or whatever you preach. its so agendized and concoted its obscene but the sugar coating draws the masses like a tidal wave for guys like this to ride, and do they ever...
cycophile 6 months ago
@cycophile These guys like Ray Comfort and John Lennox seem to work with the same tired argument, that there must be a god, because there must be a creator. And of course the Christian god, out of so many others is the correct one, and our particular species of homo sapiens, in this miniscule time period, is, was and always will be the centrepiece of the entire universe. Makes perfect sense.
gavincostin1 6 months ago
everyone listen God is in three parts like this
"In the name of the Father and of the Son and of The Holy Spirit Amen."
The Father:Jesus' father
The Son: Jesus:
The Holy Spirit: this one knows the day of the apocalypse and inspired those who wrote the books of the bible.
sgtmjames 9 months ago
wow lol looks like i got 29 muslims to pray for!
JusJuiceIt 10 months ago
um .......
Jesus Christ is God.
God never doubts the Bible -- He substantiates it with over 3-0-0 Messianic Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
Temporal, finite human, "Derwin" appropriately, doubted his theory throughout his book & personal letters.
GsliMaIiy 10 months ago
@GsliMaIiy No he didn't. Read them yourself.
zNightIVIarE 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GsliMaIiy don't make up what you do not understand, on both counts.
MrBiblicalscholar 8 months ago
“We can’t both be correct. We can both be wrong…”
Smartest thing I’ve ever heard WLC say. Unfortunately he only says it to give the appearance of being fair minded for as he says elsewhere: “If in some historically contingent circumstances, the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don’t think that that controverts (his own personal beliefs).” Or to paraphrase WLC is saying “I don't care what anyone says. I can’t be wrong.”
Blackmark52 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Simple question. Have you proved the existence of god? Yes or no ?never mind coming out with intellectual excrement.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague Have you disproved His existence? No. So the crux of the matter is, you can't defend your worldview, on the basis you set forth, from any number of criteria. I, as a believer, don't have to appeal to the ridiculous notion of placing God under a microscope, because truth is verifiable outside the empirical method, which is something you fail to grasp. You can't even support the most basic claims of your criticism let alone your worldview, which is why instead of conversing, you drone.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Theists claim god exists there it is for them to prove it. It is not for atheists to prove god doesn't exist as this would be akin to asking them to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist.You fail to grasp that if we don't use the empirical method then any bull shit can go i.e. there can be as many gods or supernatural beings as there have been people on the planet with imagination e.g. you believe in the one god when there could be an infinite number of gods, god could make gods, It gets pathetic
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague <Sigh. No, no it's not...the only thing you're demonstrating is that you can parrot the like of Dawkins and Hitchens. Empirical method, huh? So truth only arises as a result of the empirical method according to you, correct?
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@NilDesperandum777 Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy so its certainly not the invention Dawkins or Hitchens as you imply. Again empircalism is the best method of inquirey when anyone makes a claim for the supernatural. If I were I to claim little purple elfs created the universe you would find it comica,l yet when we replace it with the claim of god/s it gets an aire of respect it doesn't deserve.
DrMontague 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrMontague Never said it was the invention of Dawkins or Hitchens, as my inclusion of Nietszche eariler necessarily entails. So it's safe to say then, truth only arises as a result of the empirical method according to you, correct?
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It would be easier for you to private message me if you are going to write half a dozen comments at a time. Let us get when thing straight, no philosopher has proven the existence of god. This is the reason the religious have to have Faith: i.e. belief without proof. (online dictionary)..The Old Testament unequivocally gives us god's laws e.g. stone to death gay and lesbians, So stop the crap that it is being misinterpreted.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague And as I asked, and again ask....Which Judeo Christian countries, which western democratic countries practice stoning gays and lesbians presently? I realize by answering that question, you have to acknowledge that your premise is faulty...and that's the point. So by all means, be an adult, and answer the simple question. The next question, which I'll repeat, asks, where in Christian theology is the commandment given that all laws are forbidden to evolve through greater revelation?
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague And no I think it's important for you to respond here, as it provides me with a platform to demonstrate how flawed your thinking is. The scientific and the religious share elements of presuppositions, but WLC above lists some...I take it you havent actually listened to the video here? And to repeat AGAIN - the OT, is certainly fulfilled in the NT, which itself points to a further revealed and enhanced existence...Is the problem here that you are actually gay? Is that your crux?
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague If half a dozen comments at a time, with 500 characters (Not words - characters) proves too much, I fail to see how sending them compiled in PM form would alleviate your apparent struggles with reading anything over 2500 characters...That might explain where you problematic and selective scholarship stems from...If it cant be expressed under YT or Twitter constraints and fit into your immovable worldview where atheism, evil and God's non-existence, it must be rubbish, correct?
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NilDesperandum777 I said it would be easier to private message me. Constant scrolling becomes irritating esp. when comments are not in order.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague And asking you once more, in case the first request's follow-up is missed yet again...Can you please provide ANY theological or philosophical argument that agrees with your (Sorry, Christopher Hitcnes's) perspective, that the society of 4000 years ago, is the same society Christ advocates in the NT, or that those in theological charge under Him have advocated today...FYI: It was the finite human mind that erred...Not the infinite Love of Christ the Lord, who came as THE example.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
Comment removed
DrMontague 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have had enough of you. The Old Testament clearly shows the evil actions and laws of your imaginary god . You have not proven god exists. If you you could then you would be on every news channel going. Therefore you are simply deluded.Full Stop.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague Evidence exists, but the kind of emprical evidence you seek to to prove God's existence to you, is precisely the same kind of evidence you CANT produce to claim that He doesnt exist. That's a common philosophical reality. To engage in that line of conversation is fruitless. My concentration on you, has been everything else you've claimed. And the fact that you can't specifically defend one portion of it, SCREAMS that you dont have a clue what you're talking about (Cont..)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (From Cont...) And that, despite not owning up to the incompatible worldview you hold on to, you can't own up to any number of things that undermine your credibility as a sincere person of investigation. you havent owned up to Dawkins and Nietzsche's claim that in order for YOUR worldview to remain credible, evil must CEASE to exist. Your historical biblical citations are wrong and indefensible, and all you have is a 4000 year old wound that bears nothing to reality today. Good luck.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NilDesperandum777 To sum up. You have not proved the existence of god. If you had you would be the greatest thinker this planet has ever known. Every academic /philosopher /scientist would hold you in awe. You would be world news and not simply typing comments on YouTube, yet you imply to the world that you have proved the existence of god. The only thing you have proven is that have a deluded brain and have delusions of grandeur.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague The argument hasn't been my need to prove the existence of God. My thrust -- and I'm repeating myself over and over -- is that your criticism, is invalid from a philosophical and theological perspective because it doesn't make sense. You may feel that the burden of proof for the believer is to prove according to empirical requirements alone, but that's simply not reality. You can feel all you like, but it's evidential that you dont understand basic concepts. (Cont...)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (From Cont...) To sum it up: You can't even answer the basic -- no proof required -- question, as to how your personal worldview as an atheist corresponds with that of Dawkins and Nietszche who state, in order for YOUR worldview and theirs to make logical sense, insists that evil shouldnt exist...How do you reconcile this fact, "Dr." ? It speaks to your criticism...Just answer ONCE on this subject...Can't you? Probably not. you havent yet, and read as though you wouldnt know...
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
Quote: Some advice: You shoulď be worried for calling good, evil and evil good Unquote I am not the one doing that you are! Your god is evil he created the earth which can bring forth natural disasters and diseases and then people like you claim your god is an intelligent creator! You imply that all Islam is evil. Read the history of Christianity there is plenty of atrocities commuted by the church. When the going gets tough simply imly that god idn't give evil laws to Moses.
DrMontague 11 months ago
Hello everyone Please be aware,
DrMontage does not believe in God yet really he does believe in God,
Dr montage says God drowned babies in the flood, and burnt witches alive and stoned lesbians and gays, If God does not exist, how could God have done any of the things you say he has done, You do believe in God and it's obvious! so just be honest and say you hate God and know he exists.
Yet Dr montage has not seen God do any of these evil things but he acuses God of doing them, anyway.
TheCreationGod 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This man is deluded. The simple answer is that human beings have evolved imagination and therefore can delude themselves. The evidence for delusion is that several cultures can have different religions. Each deluded culture either by persuasion or force try to get others to accept their delusion.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague And yet the human faculty of delusion didn't prompt basic survival mechanisms when apostles and martyrs alike suffered persecution, loss of family, perpetual torture unto excruciating death? And for those Christians whose scientific achievements (Newton, Clerk Maxwell...) and intellectual capacity surely surpass yours and mine, and would be better equipped to determine a reasonable definition of "delusion" in the face of said questioned evidence...Have they also missed "the simple" ?
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 1 of 2. Only a sentient beings can be deluded. This is the reason humans are not prisoners of instinct. e.g. a mother or father might run into a burning house to try and save their child and die i n the process. Let me ask you this: were pagans deluded.? They suffered at the hand of Christians but were prepared to die . be tortured and lose their families to hold onto their religious belief i.e.of nature worship.
Yes eminent scientists can be deluded
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague Not prionsers" per se (apart from psychiatric conditions), however, impulse is a very strong engine. And I'd be careful, by the way...C.Hitchens has used "instinct" to describe moral and ethical motivations in argument against Source...Delusion is predicated on belief, and belief on evidence, so the question would arise from a 21st century apprehension based on evidence. Is there evidence for a being called Thor? No. Is there evidence for a man known as Jesus Christ? Yes. (Cont..)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
( From Cont...) So based on one pagan culture or another, we could reasonably say, that yes, they were, and some are, deluded, given a lack of evidence. Now, this doesn't remove the reality that some professing Christians arent deluded in their interpretation (ie Mormons, JW...). The difference is, early followers, the apostles,disciples, LIVED with this man, who made certain claims and performed certain acts and was party to certain events that are verifiable in history. (Cont #2...)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
(From Cont 2) C.S. Lewis wrote on the subject , "When Myth Became Fact" addressing this very scenario. To tie the conversation together, men who defined the scientific method, who invented disciplines of it, would surely understand the difference between real myth and real fact, and how evidence applies to either. So while yes they could be "deluded", based on what we know of them, they, the definition of logical,empirical, see evidence for Christ's claims and not e.g. "Zeus's"
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 I'm am not denting that there was a man called Jesus Christ. However the Jesus story was manipulated by the council of Nicea 324 AD. They they omitted equally valid gospels that showed Jesus is a different light e.g. Infancy Gospel of Thomas. They also made Mary Magdalene a prostitute because they didn't want women to be see as having power. The Jesus story also borrows from the Mithra the Persian god of light and wisdom whose birth was witnessed by shepherds. .
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague Mm...That's not so. Certainly Christ's claims, divinity, fact of resurrection werent "manipulated", and as to G.Of.T, it was omitted from Canon on the basis of it's inconsistency and lack of integrity. It was a 2nd C. concoction as opposed to the source material in the 4 Gospels. And where exactly did you read in the NT that Mary Magdelene was called a prostitute? (Cont.)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague As to Mithra and his birth story...Interestingly enough, Mithra was reputed to have been born out of a rock,fully grown and never mirrored any of the pertinent events Christ actually lived in His life. The birth story of Mithra only changed until AFTER the Gospel account of Christ's birth. So Mithraism didn't affect Christianity in that fashion what so ever...Do you have a response to these corrections?
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
Virgin births we find plenty of them in Greek mythology along with the great flood stories. It appears that CS Lewis didn't do his research as regards the Jesus Christ story. Further if Jesus was god incarnate then he is the same god of the Old Testament i.e. the evil one who drowned babies and children in his flood and give his law unto Moses that gay and lesbians should be stone to death, and women who are found not to be virgins on their wedding night should be burnt alive.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague Uhm...C.S. TAUGHT myth as a Phd, and certainly was aware of any mythological inconsistency or similarity, and in the essay mentioned posits that nothing in antiquity establishes through experience and artifact the same actual evidence that Christianity provided. That's the point. The others were myth, Christ, fact. Your other criticisms, aren't a criticism against the existence of God, merely your subjective opinion of His morality and the record of the OT, which is contestable.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@NilDesperandum777 2 of 2. The eminent scientists you mention can also be deluded. Having a brilliant mind for science doesn't mean you cannot have a psychological yearning for a creator god. Newton et al have not proven the existence of supernatural beings. It was with Darwin that the view of our place in the universe began change. Even Darwin was denounced by both the religious and the scientists of his day.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague So you calling Isaac Newton and Pascal Deluded? hmm i think you'll find more people thought those things in mass about Darwin but there you go....You talk about proving things...What has darwin done? he has proven nothing infact their is more leaps of faith in his material than anywhere else...same with all atheists. Guys like Newton cover aspects of science with logic that show an intelligent Designer / God is responsible for all this due to the complex order in nature + perfection.
SHAOLINSINZ 11 months ago
@SHAOLINSINZ Darwin set the ball in motion as regards evolutionary theory. He didn't actually prove beyond doubt in his life time, he stated that he would have yo leave to future scientists to prove his theory. DNA was the break through. Evolutionary theory is now the cornerstone of modern biology , it is our royal road to ridding humanity of the horrendous diseases that can afflict us. The diseases the god you believe in created in the first place. He such a nice supernatural being!
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague Its been proven that bacteria, even diseases have their place in killing things which could further destroy us...Other diseases out their are made by men in Labratories.
Darwin said himself in his own words he was use to making fools experiments he also said himself evolution was based off a huge leap of faith and assumption in Macro evolution and plenty of other factors. It is also PROVABLE that Darwin was into Luciferian occult teachings thats why the corrupt masons love him.
SHAOLINSINZ 11 months ago
@DrMontague I don't know if I would agree. Now...understand, I don't argue against evolution, nor do I see being a Christian as being oppositional to evolution, for the simple reason that I dont view faith as being incompatible with reason and in so many instances witness one enhancing the other. I believe Darwin was another step in terms of possibly enhancing our knowledge of our surroundings, but who's to say that given discoveries in science that said evidence wouldnt enhance his faith? Cont.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
Respond to this video...
From Cont...To say WLC is deluded, would be false given the philosophical justification he asserts for belief in God. Now remember, the atheist position is the statement of fact that there is no God, not that the disbelieve in His existence. A question to you: Is Richard Dawkins deluded when he identifies the possibility of a "Creator/Higher Power" as being an alien race, while dismissing the philosophical and theological definition of God outright?
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague From Cont...To say WLC is deluded, would be false given the philosophical justification he asserts for belief in God. Now remember, the atheist position is the statement of fact that there is no God, not that the disbelieve in His existence. A question to you: Is Richard Dawkins deluded when he identifies the possibility of a "Creator/Higher Power" as being an alien race, while dismissing the philosophical and theological definition of God outright? (Apologies for the repeat)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@NilDesperandum777 If we are the product of an alien race then they too would be the product of their universe not the creators of it. They too would have evolved. The would not be omniscient and omnipotent. We have no evidence that an alien race created our universe and us. it is purely speculative thinking. we can though ask similar questions e.g. why is this alien race are they evil and sadistic just just as the theists gods are.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague That's not the point of the question I asked you...The point is, if Dawkins or you or anyone else is appealing to an empircal model for everything, then the same standard has to be applied. Thus, if Dawkins believes God is irrational because he's never seen Him, but is willing to intellectually ascend to the reality of an alien race starting "everything" then that flies in the face of the defined criteria, for the simple reason, that Dawkins hasnt seen this alien race either...
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@NilDesperandum777 You have missed the point completely. We know that when the Spanish conquered the Americas that the natives believed them to be gods. Of course we know they were not . The Spanish had no supernatural powers. If aliens (hypothetically) created the universe they too do not possess supernatural powers as they too would have evolved in their own universe. They would have the technological know how but not supernatural powers.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague Im not missing the point, respectfully you are...The point is this, Dawkins states there is no God. He states he doesnt know how the Universe came to be. When asked to speculate, one of the possibilities is an alien civilization. In essence, both the civilization and God have not been seen by Dawkins, and yet he, the atheist, is willing to BELIEVE it's possible an alien race (Outside space and time) created the universe, but a "God" (defined as being outside space and time) couldnt.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague So if it is possible on the basis of pure speculation that one reason is possible while another for the same reason isn't, it's a little prejudicial, and thus unscientific, wouldnt you agree? I'd like to know your opinion on the corrections and your conclusions concerning, Mithra,G.O.Thomas,etc...And can you please provide where you read in the New Testament, where Mary Magdelene was called a prostitute? Thanks
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@NilDesperandum777 I never stated the bible said Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. I said the Council of Nicea AD324 began to give her this image.' Pope Gregory the Great made this assumption official by declaring in a sermon that these three characters were actually the same person: The Catholic Church did later declare that Mary Magdalene was not the penitent sinner, but this was not until 1969. After several centuries, the reputation still lingers'.( Source)I'll private message the website.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague That's a three century difference, but further, it in no way substantiates anything else that youve claimed. And certainly not that it was the intent of the Church (Theologically speaking) to undermine women in their place in the salvific economy. The Virgin Mary is considered the penultimate example of humanity, and emphasis on the superior actions of women during Christ's last moments are oft repeated because of the sharp contrast to the actions of the (male) apostles.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@NilDesperandum777 Answer my questions first I have done enough of answering yours. Your god evil and sadistic and not at very clever when it comes to making planets. Explain.Your a joke. Women have been repressed for thousands of years. The council was against women having power. Mary Magdalen was seen as having power unheard of, therefore they had to defame her. This became the official teaching of the RC Church. Again answer my questions. I have answered plenty of yours.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague No dr montage our GOd is not Evil,
YOU are the evil one here, as you beleive in God because you hate God so much, If God did not exist as you know He does than there would be nothing to hate.
Oh and btw Evolution is Religion.
Xaivier2000 11 months ago
@DrMontague Why dont you answer everyones questions with real answers instead of changing the subject all the time.
Oh and BTW you cannot block me here :)
Xaivier2000 11 months ago 11
@DrMontague Sure, no problem. But I'll begin by pointing out that your integrity is clearly suspect because you refuse to own up to the errors you contend as fact. It doesn't matter, because as is clear, I've corrected those errors, so whether you behave in a mature fashion and own up to them is up to you. I know you don't know what you're talking about, and now you know I know, and that's a satisfaction in it's own right. Now to your questions and comments...
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague By definition, God is neither evil nor sadistic. Any trained philosopher that understands The Problem of Evil, and the necessary attributes of God understands this. Now, if you say that there is no God, you contradict yourself for the simple reason that morality depends on a moral law giver. Evil depends on the existence of Good, if something is evil, it must be in opposition to what is The Good, thus, you cannot have evil without good and good without God. That's the simple version.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague "And not very clever when it comes to making planets..." Well, lol...Best to way to answer that statement is: How are your interstellar creations coming along?
LOL
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague Women have been OPPRESSED, true. But Christ, and Christianity has done more for the empowerment of women than any other ideology. Scripture is rife with it's record of women made prominent, none more than The Virgin Mary. First to receive salvation, a human being given grace beyond measure, considered human perfection. The women at the cross, the women who were given first after firsts....Maybe you should be on an Islamic thread with your opinion about oppression and women instead?
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague Your point on Mary Magdelene is complete nonsense. Theologically it makes no impact, bears nothing against the core import of Christian theology and is completely inaccurate..."Mary Magdelene was seen as having power unheard of..." Are you getting your information from movies like "Stigmata" or something? There's a reason, that the Apoc. writings were omitted from the canon, because as a document from historical credibility and theological considerations, they're deficient. Got it?
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@Ni Dawkins hasn't claimed that aliens are responsible for the creation because we have no proof. only that it might be possible. It is only a speculation. It will remain speculation unless it is proven. I have already given you the analogy/ parallel of the Spanish conquistadors. This is totally different position to theists who claim that they definitely know that there is a supernatural being i.e. god is is behind the creation but offer no proof. Aliens would not be supernatural beings.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague I never said he did claim that that was the theory, I said he speculated that it was possible, which flies in the face of his conclusion that there is no God, demonstrating his militant atheism and extreme prejudice, not to mention ignorance, but intellectually ascending to something that would require more belief than it would to believe in a rational hypothesis that something cant come from nothing, and must have a starting point ie a Being outside space and time ie God.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 BTW you ask a lot of questions which I answer but you never answer mine. Why is your god a cowboy when it comes to planet making e.g. . natural disaster and diseases. And why is he evil and sadistic laying down his law to Moses e,g. that gay and lesbians should be stoned to death. Women found not to be virgins on their wedding night should be burnt alive. The god of the New Testament is the same god as in the Old Testament. Explain why he is evil.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague I ask questions (That you've yet to answer) in sequence as they arise. I don't ask them as a means of deflection when the questions posed undermine my credibility as you're now attempting to do but continuing not to account for your incorrect conclusions ie Mithra, G.Of.Thomas, Dawkins,etc...As for an explanation for God being evil, simply put, he's not, and cannot be evil. As for the rest...When you account for your errors with explanation, I'll be more than happy to answer yours.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@NilDespera Drowning babies and children in a flood is not evil?! Wanting gay and lesbians stoned to death is not evil!? Wanting women burnt alive is not evil. Making a planet that bring forth natural disasters and disease is not evil?If I did those things you would call me evil. When your god demands it you call him merciful. loving,compassionate etc. Then you get on your knees and worship him. !Like Craig you actually have a touch of insanity. One thing you have in common you worship evil.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague You are the evil one here,
If it was not for GOd you yourself would not exist,
You mock God so much because you do believe in God as i can see because you hate God so much and you cannot hate something unless you know for a fact it is there and REAL.
God is real and you know God is Real.
Get with it Dr Montage!
You believe in God its so obivious, Yet you hate God.
Xaivier2000 11 months ago
@DrMontague Permissive Will and Perfect Will. Feel free to pull yourself away from Dan Brown novels, and Christianity made simple by atheists and actually read up on the terms. As for gay punishment...The only places in the world that still practice said punishments, are neither Judeo nor Christian. And in the meantime, as has been traditional, Theological interpretations have EVOLVED, and likely in line with God's LOVING, PERFECT WILL. As to inhospitable planets...(Cont...)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 So god didn't give his laws to Moses which some stated that he wanted gays and lesbians stoned to death? The bible is therefore wrong? Or god change his mind about wanting gays and lesbians stoned to death? Therefore god is imperfect! He sounds very human indeed to me . I have to keep reminding you on that Jesus was god incarnate. He is the same god of the old testament. The evil one. Unless he went for psychiatric treatment and is now a reformed character.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague From Cont...) And in fact, actually enhances the case that humanity and God's revelation are inextricably linked to a relationship where God's Truths become known to man over time. Is God imperfect? Impossible. But human minds attempting to grasp the infinite are. What other sense could be made for example of the Jewish sacrifice. OT, animals are sacrificed, strict legalism > NT, charity,mercy,justic over blood...Did God change His mind, or did He correct the interpretation? (Cont..)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (From Cont..) As to inhosptiable planets...Your ability to input empty responses and critiques, doesnt seem to be greatly affected by them now does it? Why suffering exists and why it needs to in the here and now is a question only God will be able to answer....But the promise of Christ, is that He will do so in a reality beyond compare and beyond anything you can imagine, and the price for that existence Forever? Pain,Joy everything in between and a love for the One who created you.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 Suffering exists because there is no god and we are the product of an evolutionary universe If you claim there is a god then he has to be is evil and sadistic. The old testament states clearly why god allows suffering, it's all because Eve ate a piece of fruit. So god said for doing that all mankind will now suffer. It didn't cross his dumb brain that it was himself who planted the tree there and that it was he who created Lucifer. How pathetic.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague Nope...You don't get to choose that A) God doesn't exist, and that B) Evil exists because God made it, even as you attempt to qualify it in poor comedy that suffering exists BECAUSE there is no God. If that's your reality, then you're definitively delusional. And here's the best part, Dawkins (Like F.Neitzsche before him) surmised in order for an atheistic worldview to make sense, that "Evil" must not exist, which would place ALL your criticisms of God as nothing. (Cont...)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (From Cont...) It would also necessarily draw your conclusions about the "good" of the atheistic worldview into question, when two of its "brightest lights" consider "Evil" a philosophical problem, in order for their worldview to exist in philosophically manageable terms. It's how Stalin could philosophically justify the Great Purges, or Hitler and his Eugenics, or any other number of atheist regimes, because all of them knew "If God doesnt exist, everything is permitted."(Cont...)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (From Cont..) So if you're attempting to make sense of your own worldview -- which makes ZERO sense -- you need to choose which philosophical camp fits you best, because your buffet style argumentation makes "sense" only behind a keyboard. In person, you wouldnt have a corner to hide in. Case in point? Your synopsis of C.Hitchens of the Creator creating us sick and demanding that we heal ourselves...Sorry, you don't get to use that either while maintaining Evil exists (Cont...)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (From Cont...) Now you may be saying, "Well of course I can pick and choose what I like." Yeah, you can, but it doesnt make it right, and the evidence you present, confirms as much. As to using the humanity of Christ as a "reminder"...I'm not sure what you think you're achieving...Is it to say, that despite Christ's unparalleled goodness, He was a fraud because you think the OT God is one way, and Christ another? Well, that doesn't hold up to exegesis, and in fact...(Cont...)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (From Cont...) And that's but one inconsistency that could be expanded upon. So if you want pick ANY consistent philosophical position, I'll argue any one with you. If you feel like your emotional concoction of personal theology is justifiable, then by all means, savor your sense of self-importance and reject verifiable facts. It's been said, never let facts get in the way of a good argument, and that's exactly what you're doing as an operating worldview. (Cont...)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (Last Cont...) So now that you're questions have been answered, you have a number of known errors to own up to. But the one I'm most interested in hearing is you defending Dawkins and Nietszche's position that in order for the Atheistic Worldview to exist and thrive, that the concept of Evil needs to be removed...Given your obsession of identifying it, does this then mean, that the foundational leaders of your worldview are not only wrong and deluded, but themselves, evil?
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 You haven't answered any of my questions you have evaded them. Theists keep on claiming that the supernatural they believe in is merciful, compassionate and forgiving. I have shown that his actions are evil. My arguments are good this is the reason you don't like that particular path of reasoning. You keep on claiming god's truths. Wait you haven't proven there is a god! In fact god's evil in the Old Testament led one philosopher to argue that there were TWO gods!
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague It's all there, what you call evasion, is actually clarification, it's just not emotionally appealing to your particularly peculiar worldview. You can't both believe God does not exist and, that suffering is a result of His existence. All you've "shown" is that you can misrepresent biblical exegesis, and what I have claimed, that you're conclusions are wrong (Mithra, Dawkins,etc) you're not addressing correction is evidence you simply dont have a developed position. (Cont...)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@NilDesp You have clarified sweet all. I'm an atheist trying to demonstrate how deluded your brain is. What I mean when I talk of god is your imaginary god. You keep on claiming he is merciful etc. If the old Testament is god's inspiration as theists claim then how should passages in which he wants Gays and lesbians stoned to death be interpreted.?This is god's law given to Moses. So what does this really mean? How can this be taken out of context?! Why was this never mentioned in RE classes?
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague I have, you just dont recognize the importance of the points made, and that's delusional ie, in spite of evidence, you still "don't get it". Couple of points you need -- in addition to others - reconsider 1) OT isn't God's inspiration,OT is humanity's understanding - at the time - of God's inspiration. 2) Homosexuality is a very minor point of consideration in either of today's theology, made evident by it's LACK of address in the NT, and present day commentaries (Cont...)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (From Cont...) Judeo Christian, Western Democratic civilization, which bears the mark of the judeo Christian Ethos is BY FAR the most merciful society in the history of mankind, the problem isn't J/C Ethics, it's man's inhumanity to man, manifested best by Social Darwinism, ie Eugenics which is necessarily, Atheistic. 3) NAME ONE western Democratic, Judeo Christian country, where stoning ANYONE is permitted let alone prescribed. 4) The example of God's mercy is the person of...(Cont)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (From Cont.) ...is the person of Jesus Christ, where the rights of the alien, the disenfranchised, the irreligious, the marginalized of society, were never more highlighted, acted upon and clarified to the point that forgiveness was brought to a seemingly self-destructive level...So if that definition of mercy escapes me, then what you're engaged in is either A) A game, where any evidence wont ever be enough or B) Your ill, and can't see evidence for what it is...(Cont 3)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (From Cont 3) So how have you taken "God's law" out of context? 1) You've taken it out of time and social understanding from thousands of years to go to today. 2) By importance. Mercy and it's effect on homosexual acceptance might be the pivotal issue for you, but in the context of God's mercy personified in Christ, it's virtually a non-issue. Again, what time and place are you living in?3) The issue of evil and the atheist...You have to state why you believe in evil...(Cont. 4..)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (From Cont 4) So as an atheist, you must be choosing the second option I offered to you: That God doesn't exist, but that evil simply exists, because suffering does, and suffering is observable, therefore...So a couple of necessary points then: You dont have a grasp on moral requirements/arguments, so you using your misinformation about God, is a non-starter. What is an issue here is your lack of the EXISTENCE of EVIL given you acknowledge it exists. So...(Cont 5)
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (From Cont 5) So...Why do you disagree with Dawkins and Nietzsche that in order for the Atheistic worldview to remain viable and integral to itself, evil must not exist...What is your answer to that? Why do you -- when Dawkins and Nietzsche state otherwise -- believe in the existence of evil as an atheist who proclaims that there is no God? Not answering this essentially constitutes that you simply have no idea why you believe, what you believe.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 God's laws were clearly stated in the Old Testament, whether they were written last week or 4000 yrs ago is irrelevant. This is what your god demanded. Jesus is supposedly god incarnate (this was agreed by the council of Nicea AD 324). This is the same god as in The Old Testament who demanded vengeance. It appears he has had a change of heart i.e. he got things wrong. Therefore god was first evil then sets out to be the good guy. He is a reformed character!
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague Wrong again. Christ's divinity wasn't "established" in Nicea, anymore than Christianity began in 324 AD. The core doctrine of Christianity was enumerated in what certainly was the oral forerunner of the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed. At the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, a document from apporx. 36 AD confirms as much, but again, dont let facts get in the way of your argument.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague (From Cont..) So which is it, does God exist and is the cause of evil or that God doesn't exist and evil simply exists because suffering exists and suffering exists because" that's the way it is " Be mature and responsible enough to pick the one position you believe in Dr. M, and we'll continue from there.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@DrMontague So, you can feel free to stand in 3000 year interpretational confusion soaked mud, but the rest of the theological Judeo Christian world is busy attempting to create societies that fight against man's inhumanity to man (ie Islam) on the basis of those ethics laid out in Scripture.The NT, is an answer to the confusion present in the OT, which is outlined as clear, which you either dont know or fail to provide...Some advice: You should be worried for calling good, evil and evil, good.
NilDesperandum777 11 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 Hi,
I have been debating Dr Montage on another page where if he cannot get his way he will insult you then block you from putting comments onto his video pages.
One is dr Richard Dakins proves the exiestince of God, Its a mock God video
TheCreationGod 11 months ago
The Gospel of Barnabas is far more authentic than any writing in the Bible, except for James. As far as the question "How did the tomb become empty?" is concerned, the individual who was crucified was buried in the tomb and his body was stolen overnight by mischievous people who spread lies about Jesus' resurrection. That explanation fits a whole lot better than the one in the Bible. Jesus ascended before those bloodthirsty jews could have him crucified.
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
Also in most of his video he "attacks" atheist -- why dose he focus on that -- why not try and prove the Muslims or Buddhist to be wrong.
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 He does that too...But Atheists are taken seriously in the academic and mainstream so why not expose the people who have the Nerve to call themself 'The Brights' but can't even back their argument...
SHAOLINSINZ 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SHAOLINSINZ But Atheists are taken seriously in the academic and mainstream"
Of course -- how can you take someone who for instance believes the world is 6000 years old seriously..
badpanda84 1 year ago
So he agrees with most atheist then -- all religion cant be true . But of course since WLC grew up in a western "christain" country he will alway be bias toward Christianity. I doubt william lane craig has researched all the worlds religions.
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Thats totally ignorant to assume because of the part of the world he's from that is why he selected Christianity....Shows the average intellect of assuming atheists.
SHAOLINSINZ 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thats totally ignorant to assume because of the part of the world he's from that is why he selected Christianity.."
that is how the most people "select" a religion and it is a fair assumption.. He would not be a Christian if he grew up in Pakistan in a strict Muslim family..
badpanda84 1 year ago
@SHAOLINSINZ By in large where and when you are born determines the type of gods you will believe in. My niece being a white and born and bred in the Uk has become a Christian. Why? because the Uk is largely perceived as a Christian country. If she had have been born in the middle east she more than likely would have been engulfed by Islam and therefore educated to be a Muslim. If time and place didn't effect your religious belief then would see no pattern all!
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague Can i just say that its not an argument to say something is less true because certain people grow up in an area and because its the main thing in that area they end up believing it....I live in the UK and i can tell you straight people here are not Christian and there is not many true Christians here at all, Most people have no beliefs here.
You are not taking into consdiration the endless people that find God as an intelligent critically thinking Adult....
SHAOLINSINZ 11 months ago
@SH I was born and bred in the Uk. You are correct that in that the Uk is growing up and becoming more secular. However if you were to go back a in history a couple hundred years in the UK you would find most people would call themselves a Christian. It was the dominant religion. If time and place didn't affect which religion you would turn to then you wouldn't expect to see a pattern. There would be Muslims,Christians etc in equal amounts. Most people still turn back to their cultural faith.
DrMontague 11 months ago
"otherwise we run the risk of being self deluded". well he said it himself.
washabollocks 1 year ago
Religion = Malware
.
Don't infect your children.
BCT071 1 year ago
Either all religios are right or all religions are wrong or 1 is right and the rest are the greatest lies ever told.
andyrihn1 1 year ago
@andyrihn1
well, if 1 is right, all of the others are the greatest lies ever told...except mormonism lol
itzahazylife 1 year ago
all religions are not true expect christian and jewisan
So chiristainty and jewisan
they have same history except chiristainty has new testment, jewisan don't have it.
supermarioworld9000 1 year ago
@supermarioworld9000 jews deny the divinity the divinity (and virgin birth) of jesus and the tripersonal god. some jews even deny the existence of an afterlife. plus by your standards muslims are right too because their's is an extended history from the jews. In fact muslims are closer to jews than christains are, muslims just have a few extra profits and a virgin birth
andyrihn1 1 year ago
@supermarioworld9000 Hmm all religion have history - and many of them have holy books..
Besides all religions claim the same thing -- all relgion say they are correct and everyone else is wrong -- ( how is christianity any different
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Look up the miracles and supernatural qualities of the bible.
xyugi0007 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Isn't that what Atheism Claims too? Religion is no different to Atheism, Agnosticism or any of them, They all think their Right...Fact is one has the Evidence backing it from all angles and That's Christ if you know ANYTHING about the Roman empire and how badly they've tried to cover up the life of Jesus, desecrate his words and make people hard a Hardened heart against God by infiltrating all mainstream Religions.
History the answer to the riddle.
SHAOLINSINZ 1 year ago
@SHAOLINSINZ lol you call that evidence
badpanda84 1 year ago
@SHAOLINSINZ Evolutionary theory is not a religion it is a science. We wouldn't class astronomy , or cosmology a religion. Because evolutionary theory tread heavily on the toes of the biblical view of creation there has been a tendency by the religious to accuse it of being a religion. Yes the The council of Nicea AD 324 under the direction of the emperor Constantine give us the Jesus story accepted today. They turned Mary Magdalene in to a prostitute and remove equally valid gospels.
DrMontague 11 months ago
@DrMontague Atheism is a world view and has as much as Christianity has in terms of values, outlooks on life etc claiming to have the correct understanding of how the earth came about.
Religious people don't accuse evolutionists of believing a religion i just think their ignorant...as Dr Craig says the Evolution theory actually backs the existence of an intelligent designer ironically...Evolution does not explain morality for one.
As for Council of Nicea it came about long before then.
SHAOLINSINZ 11 months ago
The Jesuits, Roman Bloodlines and the Pope never worshipped Jesus or God they actually worship Lucifer/Satan (deceiver) which is why they created the Roman Catholic church which intertwines heretical teachings and Egyptian eastern mysticism into its doctrine. The fact is if you don't understand Constantine Killed 200 million Christians in one of the largest persecutions of Christians in an attempt to destroy the TRUE teachings of Jesus held in Christianity then your missing the bigger picture
SHAOLINSINZ 11 months ago
The Law of Noncontradiction states: Two claims about truth cannot be true at the same time in the same sense.
Christians claim that Jesus is God in the flesh.
Islam claims that he was nothing of the sort,but a good prophet.
Both give opposing claims concerning this basic fundamental doctrine.
Therefore,both claims about this fundamental doctrine cannot be true.
Therefore,they cannot both be the same religion.
Please,you all seem to know more than me.Tell me the fallacy of this argument.
Kodiaksaint 1 year ago
Comment removed
naujphantom 1 year ago
@Kodiaksaint "Therefore,they cannot both be the same religion."
I think they can be the same in their roots.
For example if Mohammed did talked with the angel and if Jesus was the son of God, if those things really happen as they are told and later on interpretations, opinions and cultural influences affected the way we see those facts.
Our interpretations can't be both true but they can be both partially true.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom Hmm... interesting point. But how can they be the same in thier roots? The root of Christianity, the very foundation, is based upon the belief that Jesus is God incarnate. Islam rejects this belief and claims that he was merely a prophet.
Kodiaksaint 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kodiaksaint "Islam rejects this belief and claims that he was merely a prophet."
Yes, but where in the Quran says so?
If, and only if the Quran doesn't literally say so then that belief is an interpretation.
In my humble opinion it could be motivated by not wanting to have Jesus above Mohamed, maybe and only maybe, I don't want to offend anyone by saying this.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom Indeed, interpretations can have an effect on how the ideas were viewed. However, does that pardon flat out doctrinal contradictions? While seperate interpretations can be similar, it is not the similaries that matter but the differences. A cat and a dog both have hair and four legs, but the similarities are not what is important. Isn't it the same with belief systems?
Kodiaksaint 1 year ago
@Kodiaksaint Even in Christianity there are many churches, and many have also flat our doctrinal contradictions. But to talk about doctrinal contradictions is to talk about branches and not about the root.
You gave me the example of a cat and a dog, I have a cat and a dog and they get along well but we could pick another example like a terrier and a labrador.
naujphantom 1 year ago
@naujphantom I'm sorry, I should have been more clear in my phrasing. When I said doctrinal contradictions, I meant as it pertains to essential doctrine.Yes, churches disagree in many periphreal issues, such as baptism, but these beliefs are not fundamental doctrine of the Christianity.I'm refering to the debated identity of Christ. Whereas doctrinal contradictions can mean differences like a terrier and labrador, doesn't fundamental doctrinal differentiation denote entirely different "species"?