Lol dude you're standing here before these old angry atheist farts (talk about the religious having mostly old people supporting them LOL) when we all know that you, Cenk Ugyur, are a Muslim and you DON'T want the end of religion AT ALL-you only want the end of Christianity.
Look at the name you created, the 'Young Turks'-they were a radical group of Turkish youths, fiercely Muslim and anti Christian. Where the FUCK is your atheism and liberalism? Hypocrite
Oh please. You'll find every angle to attack a person by. "The Young Turks" was a humorous reference to a radical group. Fuck Christianity. Fuck Muslims. Fuck Any religion. What would his logic be for the end of Christianity? To raise the number of atheists?
Religion is dying. The demographic who attends church the most nowadays are people of the ages 50-65. Churches are shutting down. Attendances are dipping to a low.
@Stm11111 Righttttttttttt, continue hoping and dreaming away loser-from the audience in front of Cenk, they're the ones who have the oldies. Funnily enough, surveys show a rise in the religious fervour among the new generation-and most of the people (20s) I know are very religious (and most of them are, like me, in university). My parish church is always full of worshippers.
And I live in Europe-the least religious continent. I suggest you never visit African churches or you'll commit suicide.
haha thats a joke! A rise in young people? When the numbers of the entire church going population has been cut by 40% in 30 years. Source of survey?
Since 1979, people have attended church less. People are finding out that religion is utter crap and has no actual meaning. The number is expected to be 60% by 2020.
I could give fuck if your church is full. The numbers all around, are dying. What does that say? Religion is dying.
I agree w/ Cenk. Read the religious texts, and the history of religion. Doing this would not only make you want freedom from religion, but protection from religious domination... Religious texts as the Quran & the Christian Bible promote intolerance and violence towards non-believers and women. I admire Cenk's "tolerance" approach, but I'd like to see him take a more firm approach and reveal the true colors of Islam. Reading the Quran for 3 minutes is enough to see what it's about....
Im an atheist but with christanty were to leave the west. Islam fill the vaccum. Its important we atheist ally ourselves with he least dumbest religion in the world.
See this is how agnostics and athiest should approach things when they talk about religion. Dont bash it, dont stereotype. Use facts and logic. Thats how we will get our point across. If you sit there and scream fuck religion, fuck god, fuck the bible etc. then youll only seem like a fool. Dont stoop to that level. Cenk does it best.
Religion is fading from America........also the country is goign down, increased STD patients, increased drug problems, increased teen pregnancies, increased crime rate and i can go on and on.....just just putting something out there
Religion had a place in society back in the day - back when we didn't have the technology to be able to hold people accountable. There was a need to instill fear in people's minds ie. "God is always watching therefore don't do this this and this". From there human greed caused conflict and a power struggle between various religions.
But in the modern day, we do not need a god to tell us not to steal. We, at least in the developed world, are better able to hold people accountable.
-_- religions have done plenty of bad but the worst atrocities in human history have been committed by atheist secular governments in the 20th century. You guys should invite the leader of the most atheist country in the world next year. His name is Kim Jongil.
Just because one dictator has a cult of personality doesn't mean every argument against religious oppression is invalid.
.
Two thousand years of regressive society thanks to Islam and Christianity in Europe and the Middle East, watching pictures from the interrogation methods of the Spanish Inquisition or the treatment of infidels and savages in the Americans and in Africa for centuries should suddenly be pardoned thanks to Kim Jong-il, who sees himself as a god.
@underbjorn Go study some history. Human atrocities religious and non religious go back far further than 2 thousand years and ALL of it was surpassed by an astronomical amount by ATHEIST, SECULAR states in the 20th century. I stated the leader of the most atheist state in contemporary times, Kim Jongil, as an illustration not as a pardon for religious atrocities. Go learn some logic while your're brushing up on history.
It's obvious you lack experience in academics. I have studied history on academic levels, and while it's incredinly uncommon to meet such simplistic exclamations as yours there, I guess you needed to feel safe somewhere.
.
Astronomical amount in human lifes during 100 years, there's more to it than the absolute number of human lives, most people dying in the USSR and Chinacwas due to starvation, something that continue with astronomical amounts to this day elsewhere.
@underbjorn LOL. I've studied at finer institutions than your birdbrain could possibly ponder.Don't make me laugh. Not even touching atheist Mao and Stalin, even the small time atheist despots Pol Pot, Kim Jongil atrocities pales in sheer numbers and scale all the human atrocities before them. That is empirical fact dumbass. Stop evading truth empirical evidence with juvenile equivocation BS. If you think I'm lying then go look up the figures yourself and give me a semi-reasoned response.
Your need to show off how "fine" your academic institutions are show your lack of self-confidence, your numbers regard human deaths exclusively, andh uman deaths through starvation.
.
Your lack of knowledge on the other hand is just frightening, maybe you should look up the number of deaths thanks to the social conservative Christian-dominated Indian Empire governments creating famines of ridiculous proportions, also the 20 million deaths during the Taiping rebellion.
@melonbarmonster Bullshit. Just the amount of russians killed by Hitler tips the scale to the catholic camp, you got to use really screwed math to even come close to making that claim..
@KKDragonLord Hitler was more atheist than he was religious but even if you want to throw him in the religious camp he's body count doesn't come close to a single communist dictator like Mao let alone the dozens of others of the 20th century.
Does anybody know a website where the similarities between the various religions are pointed out? Like Cenk said the Flood for instance or the virgin birth and the death and reincarnation after three days.
@RottenRroses It's called the Christ Myth Theory. Cenk probably got this out of "Religulous" and trust me, anyone who studies this stuff will tell you that the Christ Myth Theory 100% bogus. A popular example is that the Persian god Krishna was also born to a virgin, and considering that Krishna's mother had eight children before him.....yeah, enough said.
@giftedkidrules victims. Although, not much since I'm a poor college student that works two waiting jobs to try and get myself through college. Although, I can easily see why you chose Christianity. Your judgmental and arrogant ways thrive right through my computer screen. Enjoy living in your little fantasy world you fucking prick.
@giftedkidrules So... I assume you are trying (and failing to) argue that since you met no atheists in Joplin that atheists do not volunteer or give monetarily to charity, is the correct? I find it hard to believe that you would ask every single worker there what religion, if any, that he/she professed to be. I volunteer with 3 local charities when I have spare time. Just because many are not physically able to help it does not hinder on monetary support. I gave as much as I could to support the
i know that most christians never read the bible and if they read it they only read the part their preachers tell them to. And christians are full of hate when it come to other people and other religions. I believe christianity is a threat to humanity. hitler was a devout christian.
@glower125 Your logic is flawed. You can't base a religion's influence on a group of people just because they believe in that religion. You might not even believe in religious at all and be an extremest that wants to overthrow governments. Just like they say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", it's true of religion and everything else. You're referring to "sheep" that don't think for themselves in post. Guess what, those sheep are sheep no matter what religion they follow.
@glower125 face it. you don't know most christians. though there are a lot of evil christians, i don't attribute this to them being (or claiming to be) christian. religion is not a threat to humanity, BAD PEOPLE are a threat to humanity. hitler was a master of persuasion that used pathos, people's vulnerability, and probably a commonality such as christianity to gain the people's love by showing that he related to them. that's politics baby.
@redstickwoman i agree with you in that bad ppl are the real threat to a humanity, but religion helps. religion, especially teachings in the bible help. I mean jesus supported slavery and never refuted racism or forms of intolerance, or for that matter any sadistic teachings in the old testament. Violence and sadistic behavior is perfectly reasonable behavior IF you believin' the books. ppl of religious moderation give cover to the 'nuts.' skeptical inquiry is well deserved
@tamu77095 but you make it sound as though i'm not a skeptic. if you're trying to call out my own personal beliefs in christianity, i treat the old testamant as more of an historical account of christianity than a religious text, especially when you consider all of the re-translating, the obvious influence of the culture and time period during which it was written and people who have contributed (and taken away.) people's lack of ability to contextualize is what gives birth to the nuts.
Nah, I think that only gets me as far as protecting their rights. When it comes to actual respect, I don't even care if they're liberal or moderate about it. When they're defending irrational dangerous bullshit (circumcision, degrading science education, heterosexual supremacy, and so on) I'm gonna call them out as enablers - they enable, defend and rationalise extremist behaviour.
@PurushaDesa I don't really care if they do it to themselves but when they try to force it on others like circumcising babies, that's messed up. That's why I dislike it when children teach their kids to believe in god. If you believe they should have that information then ok but don't portray it as fact, show them all sides and let them decide.
@Truthiness231 Code for "I'm running for cover because I have no idea what I'm hell I'm talking about on this subject". I accept your apology. It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong :P
First, religion is provably bogus whether or not you think he existed (or indeed whether or not he even existed), so let's move past that. I concede that a man named Jesus existed. Now what? It doesn't change reality in any way, shape, or form that he existed. Now, if you think he existed AND think he had magic powers comparable to Aquaman, that's a mental disorder you're working on.
Why do you not believe Zeus, Thor, and/or Ra ever existed? There's plenty of old stories that say so...
@Truthiness231 Your opinion of religion as "provably bogus" is nothing more than that, your opinion, and I frankly don't give a damn about that in this argument. I presenting the fact that Jesus - not some random fellow named Jesus, the one described in the New Testament - did exist as a historical figure, which is now accepted beyond any reasonble doubt by everyone intellient person on Earth, believer or non-believer.
@JRserver "Thor, Zeus and Ra were never said be historical figures. Your confusing mythology for history."
So the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans just thought they were worshiping mythological creatures? Were that true (it isn't), I'd have to give them credit for being more honest about their religion than you are with yours.
@Truthiness231 Well, bring on the credit, then, since their stories are, in fact, classified within the realm of mythology, not history, which apparantly still can't tell apart.
@JRserver I think you missed the point: there is equal proof for any story of magic people creating the universe (ie none).
Zeus = Yahweh = Thor = Ra = Allah = Vishnu = Unicorns
Still waiting for you to show me how someone writing about a man named Jesus years after he died is somehow proof that one of those specific magic invisible people that just came into existence and created everything else is really out there watching everything.
@Truthiness231 Apparantly, you missed what the entire argument was about, so let me make this very clear:
I. DO. NOT. GIVE. A. FUCK. WHAT. YOUR. OPINION. OF. GOD/RELIGION/THEISTIC BELIEF. IS.
What I was arguing about here is the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of modern religions, which is being denied by Cenk in this video and you and others in this thread, because it opens the door to the POSSIBILITY of having a faith. THAT, and that ALONE, is what I have arguing here.
@JRserver And as I said, the history of religion is not merit for anything. And on the "possibility of having faith" (where "faith" is defined as "believing something is true without a reason"), then yes anything is "grounds for having faith"; the tides coming in and going out is enough for Bill O'Reilly to have faith in magic sky daddies.
Jesus Christ was said to have been the Son of God, performed miracles, died on a cross, rose three days later, etc.
Historians cneturies later are able to verify that that person did, in fact, exist, as a historical person, meaning that he may or may not have held the aformentioned attributes.
Ergo, people must decide for themselves if he did or not.
Cenk and Truthiness231 are afraid of what people might decide, so they push the Christ Myth Theory? Get it?
@Truthiness231 In other words, contrary to your shallow, shortsighted analysis, history is merit for plenty with respect to religion. There is no doubt, at this point, that Jesus of Nazareth did walk the Earth. Historians, be they Christian, Jewish, or non-believer all agree on this point, and those who are not believers can live with the prospect of other people holding faith, because they know that history has left that door open.
@Truthiness231 You and Cenk, on the other hand, cannot, and so you push the Christ Myth Theory while trying to minimize the impact that informed people can make on this debate by saying that A Jesus existed. However, the facts just aren't on your side on this onpal. You're fighting a losing battle. Give it up.
I don't doubt a Jesus existed. I'm fairly sure multiple people named Jesus have existed...
Let's just forget any possible doubt that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I'll concede he did exist if it will move the argument forward. From this point forward, I - for all practical purposes - believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed.
Now what? Even if you could prove conclusively that he was magically (evidence missing), that alone wouldn't be proof of a deity.
@JRserver But then the existence of US armed forces is enough for the possibility of faith of cargo cults: watch?v=zWjGwBpLZdY (it's a religion that formed when Americans blew the minds of islanders who had never seen anything close to our tech, and because they couldn't comprehend how we had the ability to make planes and guns, they assumed Americans were gods).
Having the possibility to think something true without reason is meaningless. Big deal if you have a "reason" to not have a reason.
@Truthiness231 That's a pretty Apples and Oranges comparison, since technology as we think of it did not exist 2,000 years ago. In any case, whatever opinion on the divinity or non-divinity of Jesus you give is of no greater or lesser value than one I might give, which is why I stated from the get go that the divinity of Jesus was not the argument I was making here.
Why would we hope that there is a higher consciousness? What is the point in that? Human beings are clearly…CLEARLY enough to contemplate for a whole lifetime. I think that agnostics need to get on the atheist bandwagon...We need you agnostics...Your no good on the fence!
@JRserver Oh, really? It is? Okay, so then what makes the likelihood of Jesus being divine any more or less than Buddah? How does someone like yourself who claims to value intellectual honesty and historical voracity decide which potentially divine person to dedicate their lives to?
@JRserver It matters greatly to me because your actions as a human being inherently effect the future of our species. What you teach to your 3 children they'll teach to their 9 children and so on. This is why this nonsense has to be stopped. Or are you going to argue that I have no right to be concerned about the future mental health of human beings?
So tell me, how does one reconcile which deity they chose? Why aren't you a Buddhist? At least they're deeply intelligent people.
@YourBrainOnReligion Well, I'll teach my children whatever the hell I want, they'll grow up to be just a smart as everyone else, and you'll sit there and like it.
And again, reconciling which deity I choose is my business and no one elses.
@JRserver So you have no concern if you're teaching your children intellectual poison? None at all? Isn't it your responsibility as a parent to look out for their well being? If you're teaching them, what will be looked at in a few hundred years as nothing more than Greek mythology, as if it is pure fact, you're doing them a great disservice and I think that's bullocks.
Your inability to explain the reconciliation process makes me think you can't reconcile it. Willfully dishonest to yourself?
@YourBrainOnReligion You calling something intellectual poison doesn't make it so. By pushing the Chirst Myth thoery, you are, in fact, teaching intellectual poison, since that is DEMONSTRABLY false. As I've said before, I don't give a damn what anyone thinks of my beliefs, but I do care about facts, and that's why I will continue to argue against the Christ Myth theory.
@JRserver Oh I can PROVE it's not JUST intellectual poison—it's moral and ethical poison as well. It directly poisons your deepest desires for honesty which inherently effects every facet of your thoughts which require integrity. You have no idea and are oblivious to it. It took me a long time to regain that after believing this garbage as a kid. There is nothing in the world that feels better internally than knowing you're man enough to be honest with yourself about EVERYTHING.
@YourBrainOnReligion Why is that? I don't have to justify my own beliefs to anyone but myself, and they only need justify theirs to themselves and to hell with what everyone else thinks.
@YourBrainOnReligion Beliefs, by their very nature, are subjective. Then again, by pushing the Christ Myth Theory in the face of scholarly opposition, I must admit that you are validating your point that beliefs that run up against the facts have no value if they don't stand up to scrunity.
@JRserver Scholars don't oppose the christ myth theory because they understand what it means. It is not denying that a man named jesus walked the earth - it is denying that a man named jesus who was the actual son of god walked the earth. As I've explained countless times, the former does not matter - the LATTER does! But I'm truly tired of this argument.
@YourBrainOnReligion Once again, the Christ Myth theory is the notion the Jesus never lived as a historical figure and that his story in the Bible is a knockoff of pagan myths, neither of which the scholarly community supports. As I'VE explained countless times.
I hope you're serious about leaving this time, bub.
@Jeffersonwazright What scholarly community? You do realize that historians make a good living studying the Bible and other Holy Books and their historical context, and anyone who'se done anyone research into the topic will readily agree that historians across the board reject the Christ Myth theory.
@JRserver Once again. What scholars? And please don't do a search to answer my question. Just answer the question. If you have to do a search I would rather you just not reply me becaue that means you are just spouting things to try and win without facts. And please do not say Lee Strobel.
@Jeffersonwazright Wasn't gonna cite Lee Strobel, but I was gonna cite names such as Bart Ehrman, Marvin Meyer, John Dominic Crossan, Elaine Pagels, Paula Fredrickson, Edwin Yamanuchi, Chris Forbes, Edwin R. Bevan, David Ulansey, S.G.F. Brandon, R. Joseph Hoffman, William G. Dever, Darrel L. Bock, Ben Witherington III, Richard Bauckham, and Luke Timothy Johnson, to name a few. Would you like some more? I'd be happy to provide some more!
@JRserver I can tell you had to do research on those names because they all appear to be perfectly cited. You did not quote those from your brain I know that.....and I also do not care to look into them to see if you are telling the truth although i have read some of Ehrman. I do not recall him establishing Yeshua as an authentic human being but I suppose it is possible. I believe he strictly critiqued the historicity of scripture.
@Jeffersonwazright "I can tell you had to do research on those names because they all appear to be perfectly cited. You did not quote those from your brain I know that."
Yeah, it's called doing the research to come to an informed opinion. Look into it. And anyway, do you expect me to commit the name of every biblical scholar to memory for them to be legitimate.
I refer you to the video "Bart Ehrman vs Infidel Guy". Ehrman, hardly a devout believer, lays out Yeshua as an authentic human being
@Jeffersonwazright "I can tell you had to do research on those names because they all appear to be perfectly cited. You did not quote those from your brain I know that."
Yeah, it's called doing the research to come to an informed opinion. Look into it. And anyway, do you expect me to commit the name of every biblical scholar to memory for them to be legitimate?
I refer you to the video "Bart Ehrman vs Infidel Guy". Ehrman, hardly a devout believer, lays out Yeshua as an authentic human being
I remember it was when I was studying the creation of the Abrahamic faiths and how/where they spread that I first started questioning if I should be taking anything on faith. It wasn't until I became a complete skeptic that I was able to shed it completely, but without the history I'm not so sure I would have ever gotten out of the particular mindset theism puts one in.
@YourBrainOnReligion On the TruthSurge plug: thanks, I actually do enjoy his talks. Eerily, he sounds a lot like me and has my same speech patterns (even the rambling tangents, which I try to keep nicely contained in parenthesis)... divine inspiration maybe? =P
And on that quote from Stephen Roberts: I tend to go to the same videos as you and I'm always using that line (it shuts people up a large percentage of the time), so as long as you keep favoriting/liking videos that quote will appear ^.^
@Truthiness231 hahahahaahahah excellent. TS is a good [online] friend of mine - very entertaining and educated for sure! The similar name combined with your story and I couldn't help bring him up :)
Listen to Cenk at 5:52 parroting the throughly debunked Christ Myth Theory. Cenk, the easiest way for any non-belieber to instantly lose all credibility is to try to push this ill-researched and utterly inaccurate piece of pseudo-scholarship. There's a reason why the entire scholarly community rejects the Christ Myth theory, and accepting this fact doesn't even force one to be a Christian. Bill Mahaer tried it, Dawkins tried it, Hitchens tried it, and they all failed, because it's not true,
@lzf15 Sent it to your inbox. Since I can't post links on the comments section, anyone else interested should look up "Dr. Chris Forbes on Zeitgeist part 1" or "Bart Ehrman VS Atheist The Infidel Guy". Hope these help. Cheers.
@atheistram Believing that the miracles, divinity, resurrection, etc. are all bunk is your perogative, but there's no "might be possible" about it when it comes to the existence of Jesus. The entire scholarly community agrees on this matter, and I would ask you or Cenk to name one of the these other prophets who dies and rise three days later, and if it's Horus, Attis, Dionysis, Mithras, or Krishna, don't bother, they've all be refuted. You're entitled to your own opinion, NOT your own facts.
@atheistram No, they offer a no comment on the former, as it is not within the ability of historians to determine that validity of the resurrection, which, at no point, did I say that they did affirm or deny. They simply say that esus performed feats which those around him believed miraculous, or even godlike, and they leave it at that.
And yes, they entire scholarly community DOES agree on the existence of Jesus. but don't take my word for it. Ask a few Biblical scholars.
@JRserver Biblical scholars have a presupposition, that Jesus existed, because they are all Christians of one ilk or another. Try asking an actual objective historian if Jesus existed.
@atheistram To quote Bart Ehrman, that is also the case of countless historical figures whose existence we affirm. I refer you to the video "Bart Ehrman vs Infidel Guy" here on Youtube.
And I'm still waiting to here of these other prophets who died and rose three days later. Just make sure to skip over Horus, Attis, Dionysis, Mithras, and Krishna.
@JRserver By that logic, Krishna is also a historical figure whose existence we affirm. At least Hindu's do. And Allah is also a historical figure whose existence we affirm. At least Muslims do. :D
@JRserver Allah has a different prophet, Muhammed, thus not the same God. Muslim's don't accept Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit as part of the trinity, they have ONE God, thus not the same God. :D
@atheistram No, be he is a highly revered prophet in Islam, which, by the way, refers to Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since all claim a common patriarch in Abraham. Sorry, YOU fail.
@JRserver So what if he's a highly revered prophet in Islam. He's not the most highly revered. And why if Islam recognizes Christians and Jews as part of the club do they say "Die Heretic" to Jews and Christians? YOU fail. :D
@atheistram Again, you BADLY need to bone on your knowledge of Islam/talk to some actual Muslims, who I'm sure who react incredulously to many of the descriptions you have given of what they believe.
@JRserver Muslims don't believe in the divinity of Jesus. And that Jesus wasn't the last prophet, Muhammed was (according to Islam). Those are the ONLY claims I have made in regard to Islam. If you don't believe me, perhaps YOU need to do some research and talk to ACTUAL Muslims.
Btw... why if Christ is soooo revered in the Muslim world, will a Muslim be put to death if he chooses to join Christianity (this is in the Middle East, not America).
@atheistram Really? Then you should know that Muslims agree with Christians in the virgin birth part of the Christ story.
On the second point, I can't say, but I don't see how the question is relevant to anything in this conversation, since the fact that Jesus is so highly revered in Islam IS that, a fact.
@JRserver If Muslims really believed in the virgin birth part of the Christ Story, Jesus would have to be divine according to Islamic doctrine. Muslims think of Jesus as another prophet. Muhammed is the superior prophet to Jesus.
@atheistram Quick Question - Have you ever picked up a Quran or ANY holy text, or do you just take the word of whatever Cenk Uygur, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, etc. tell you a particular religious group believes? I'm inclined to think the latter based on your previous statement and the rest of what you have posted on this thread.
@atheistram No, you clearly haven't, or you would know that Muslims do believe in the virgin birth, and even call Jesus "The Messiah", though not the Son of God. Bone up on the Qu'ran, the Bible. and the Baghvad Gita, then we'll talk.
@JRserver It's relevant because you're making a big deal about how Christianity is the ONLY religion that has a prophet die and rise from the dead three days later. :)
@atheistram That has zero bearing on whether Jesus performed miracles, died and rose three days later, etc. My point is that Jesus did exist as a historical figure and Cenk's claim that Christianity is a knock off of earlier religions is demonstrably false. Anything beyond that is irrelevant to this discussion.
@atheistram Christians "stole" them in that the put Christmas and Easter on the dates that the pagans had celebrated them on, in open knowledge that the actual dates of both Christmas and Easter were unknown.
@JRserver Sorry but you're deeply mistaken. The Christ Myth is very much legitimate. Yes, there are historical accounts which are quite compelling to most scholars that a man named Jesus who had followers existed. However, not a single one of them validates any supernatural miracles or even makes mention of them. So what importance is that? How does this validate the claims of christianity at all? It doesn't, and that is why Dawkins, Hitchens and Maher, et al still point this out.
@YourBrainOnReligion I'm sure it is very much legitimate to those who have an allergy to the topic of religious history, but the entire histroical and scholarly community agrees that the existence of Jesus cannot be disputed.
@JRserver Did you have a hard time comprehending my words? Let's try this again, read it slowly outloud to yourself if you need, okay?
"Yes, there are historical accounts which are quite compelling to most scholars that a man named Jesus who had followers existed. However, not a single one of them validates any supernatural miracles or even makes mention of them."
What importance is it that Jesus' existence is proven when the most important part OF his existence (DIVINE MIRACLES) can NOT be?
@YourBrainOnReligion I believe I already addressed this question with my comment, "As I've pointed out before, this by no means validates the miraculous/supernatural elements of the Christ story, but Dawkins, Hicthens, Maher, Uygur, etc. take it a step further and claim he never existed because they know that while the fact that Jesus existed doesn't validate his divinity, that does open the door to the possibility of faith."
@JRserver Let's try this.. fictional hypothetical story: Pythagoras was said to have lived some 2500 years ago and it was claimed he could turn trees into gold, travel on a magic carpet and was even immortal with the exception of uranium, which is how he died. Pythagoras was said to be a god *because* of his supernatural powers. 2500 years later, we look back to find no mention of these powers by any historians, but we DO find he WAS a real man. Say this is real... Q: WOULD HE MATTER TODAY?
@YourBrainOnReligion Your're missing the point, friend. Historians agree that Jesus did exist and he performed feats that appeared miraculous to those around him, and leave it at that. You, Dawkins, Uygur, Harris, Maher, and Hitchens all know that this is all it definitively proves, but you also know that by allowing for his existence, that means that maybe he did perform miracles, maybe he didn't, and people have to make up their own minds, and your scared of what conclusion they might reach.
@JRserver Historians acknowledge his *existence* —NOT his miracles. That is the entire POINT of the Christ Myth.
1. Why the HELL would christianity require FAITH if there were simply EVIDENCE to prove this crap????
2. There is no "MIGHT" about it — if some dude walked on water, raised people from the dead, and ALL this other stuff — why is there NO mention of it outside of the bible?
If his MIRACLES make him DIVINE, and the miracles are unsubstantiated, SO IS HIS DIVINITY. Do you get it?
@YourBrainOnReligion You might wanna actually google the Christ Myth sometime, friend. The Wikipedia page for "Jesus Myth Theory" describes it as "is the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was not an historical person, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community". That goes a little further than saying, "He lived, but didn't turn water into wine."
@JRserver omg the title alone should clue you buddy! THEORY = SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. LOL I mean wow bro. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, he lived but never walked on water and thus, was not divine. His divinity hinges on the miraculous nature of the claims in the bible. If he didn't walk on water, he didn't rise from the dead. Do you follow?
@YourBrainOnReligion And what, pray tell, is the evidence that you've come across that Jesus never lived as a historical figure that I and the entire scholarly community, which views the theory as total BS, appear to have missed friend?
@JRserver "Biblical scholar L. Michael White, not himself a Jesus-myth theorist, writes ... so far as we know, Jesus did not write anything, nor did anyone who had personal knowledge of him. There is no archeological evidence of his existence. There are no contemporaneous accounts of his life or death: no eyewitness accounts, or any other kind of first-hand record. All the accounts of Jesus come from decades or centuries later; the gospels themselves all come from later times ..."
@YourBrainOnReligion Friend, for every historian you can cite that doubts the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, I can cite a dozen who believe he did. If you REALLY want to go down that road, I'd be happy, to engage in that debate, but be forewarned, you are going to lose.
@JRserver What are you talking about? I'm referencing a biblical scholar...?!?! I'm referencing someone FROM YOUR TEAM. LOL *facepalm* *headdesk* *tearsofblood*
Slowly explaining and putting your idea out there in a controlled and understandable way is how to change peoples minds.
Well trying to force another idea or way of thinking down someones throat always fails
TheSolitaryTraveller 4 weeks ago
la illah ila Allah
Clawed1234 1 month ago
Lol dude you're standing here before these old angry atheist farts (talk about the religious having mostly old people supporting them LOL) when we all know that you, Cenk Ugyur, are a Muslim and you DON'T want the end of religion AT ALL-you only want the end of Christianity.
Look at the name you created, the 'Young Turks'-they were a radical group of Turkish youths, fiercely Muslim and anti Christian. Where the FUCK is your atheism and liberalism? Hypocrite
Ah well, yanks you're fucked anyway
ivaflimkien 1 month ago
@ivaflimkien
Oh please. You'll find every angle to attack a person by. "The Young Turks" was a humorous reference to a radical group. Fuck Christianity. Fuck Muslims. Fuck Any religion. What would his logic be for the end of Christianity? To raise the number of atheists?
Religion is dying. The demographic who attends church the most nowadays are people of the ages 50-65. Churches are shutting down. Attendances are dipping to a low.
"Yanks" "Farts"....
Stm11111 1 month ago
@Stm11111 Righttttttttttt, continue hoping and dreaming away loser-from the audience in front of Cenk, they're the ones who have the oldies. Funnily enough, surveys show a rise in the religious fervour among the new generation-and most of the people (20s) I know are very religious (and most of them are, like me, in university). My parish church is always full of worshippers.
And I live in Europe-the least religious continent. I suggest you never visit African churches or you'll commit suicide.
ivaflimkien 1 month ago
@ivaflimkien
haha thats a joke! A rise in young people? When the numbers of the entire church going population has been cut by 40% in 30 years. Source of survey?
Since 1979, people have attended church less. People are finding out that religion is utter crap and has no actual meaning. The number is expected to be 60% by 2020.
I could give fuck if your church is full. The numbers all around, are dying. What does that say? Religion is dying.
Stm11111 1 month ago
'Why do you think God hates shrimp.' That was great!
bartonim 2 months ago
I agree w/ Cenk. Read the religious texts, and the history of religion. Doing this would not only make you want freedom from religion, but protection from religious domination... Religious texts as the Quran & the Christian Bible promote intolerance and violence towards non-believers and women. I admire Cenk's "tolerance" approach, but I'd like to see him take a more firm approach and reveal the true colors of Islam. Reading the Quran for 3 minutes is enough to see what it's about....
teknoah 3 months ago
I LOVE seeing the older folks there.
treefireguy 5 months ago
Dawkins and Hitchens videos are pretty much all the anti-religious videos you need
YOYOdaMOOSE 5 months ago
1:51
KKDragonLord 5 months ago
isnt Cen Uygur a Muslims? he's brown, turkish, hates israel, and always defends them.
WonderBread006 6 months ago
Go Cenk!
ridewave444 6 months ago 13
Im an atheist but with christanty were to leave the west. Islam fill the vaccum. Its important we atheist ally ourselves with he least dumbest religion in the world.
fargonbastedge 6 months ago
Atheist say religion is fiction, theist say religion is history, my compromise = religion is the greatest historical fiction :)
jcarrillo7 7 months ago
See this is how agnostics and athiest should approach things when they talk about religion. Dont bash it, dont stereotype. Use facts and logic. Thats how we will get our point across. If you sit there and scream fuck religion, fuck god, fuck the bible etc. then youll only seem like a fool. Dont stoop to that level. Cenk does it best.
BrooklynJEW7 7 months ago 22
religions are not the problem, the problem is in the humans
BAN ALL HUMANS!!!
problem solved!
dyaakov 7 months ago
what about the massacres of the ww2 in china by atheist japanese, and the communist killings by atheist stallin
dyaakov 7 months ago
Religion is fading from America........also the country is goign down, increased STD patients, increased drug problems, increased teen pregnancies, increased crime rate and i can go on and on.....just just putting something out there
sammyjs1983 7 months ago
@sammyjs1983 truer words were never spoken my friend
residentevilfreakk55 7 months ago
@residentevilfreakk55 You realize that religion is horse shit? Atheism FTW
DerrenBrown100 7 months ago
@DerrenBrown100 know i realize that atheists are retards, you will be eating horse shit in hell
residentevilfreakk55 7 months ago
@residentevilfreakk55 There is no hell, demons, devil, gods, unicorns, afterlife, witches. Sorry.
DerrenBrown100 7 months ago
@DerrenBrown100 oh you dont worry about the demons, unicorns or witches, just the other 4
residentevilfreakk55 7 months ago
@sammyjs1983 Almost no one is religious in Sweden and they have less crime, etc. Religion is for retards.
DerrenBrown100 7 months ago
Religion had a place in society back in the day - back when we didn't have the technology to be able to hold people accountable. There was a need to instill fear in people's minds ie. "God is always watching therefore don't do this this and this". From there human greed caused conflict and a power struggle between various religions.
But in the modern day, we do not need a god to tell us not to steal. We, at least in the developed world, are better able to hold people accountable.
masterabdul 7 months ago
-_- religions have done plenty of bad but the worst atrocities in human history have been committed by atheist secular governments in the 20th century. You guys should invite the leader of the most atheist country in the world next year. His name is Kim Jongil.
melonbarmonster 7 months ago
@melonbarmonster ---
Just because one dictator has a cult of personality doesn't mean every argument against religious oppression is invalid.
.
Two thousand years of regressive society thanks to Islam and Christianity in Europe and the Middle East, watching pictures from the interrogation methods of the Spanish Inquisition or the treatment of infidels and savages in the Americans and in Africa for centuries should suddenly be pardoned thanks to Kim Jong-il, who sees himself as a god.
underbjorn 7 months ago
@underbjorn Go study some history. Human atrocities religious and non religious go back far further than 2 thousand years and ALL of it was surpassed by an astronomical amount by ATHEIST, SECULAR states in the 20th century. I stated the leader of the most atheist state in contemporary times, Kim Jongil, as an illustration not as a pardon for religious atrocities. Go learn some logic while your're brushing up on history.
melonbarmonster 7 months ago
@melonbarmonster ---
It's obvious you lack experience in academics. I have studied history on academic levels, and while it's incredinly uncommon to meet such simplistic exclamations as yours there, I guess you needed to feel safe somewhere.
.
Astronomical amount in human lifes during 100 years, there's more to it than the absolute number of human lives, most people dying in the USSR and Chinacwas due to starvation, something that continue with astronomical amounts to this day elsewhere.
underbjorn 7 months ago
@underbjorn LOL. I've studied at finer institutions than your birdbrain could possibly ponder.Don't make me laugh. Not even touching atheist Mao and Stalin, even the small time atheist despots Pol Pot, Kim Jongil atrocities pales in sheer numbers and scale all the human atrocities before them. That is empirical fact dumbass. Stop evading truth empirical evidence with juvenile equivocation BS. If you think I'm lying then go look up the figures yourself and give me a semi-reasoned response.
melonbarmonster 7 months ago
@melonbarmonster ---
Your need to show off how "fine" your academic institutions are show your lack of self-confidence, your numbers regard human deaths exclusively, andh uman deaths through starvation.
.
Your lack of knowledge on the other hand is just frightening, maybe you should look up the number of deaths thanks to the social conservative Christian-dominated Indian Empire governments creating famines of ridiculous proportions, also the 20 million deaths during the Taiping rebellion.
underbjorn 7 months ago
@melonbarmonster Bullshit. Just the amount of russians killed by Hitler tips the scale to the catholic camp, you got to use really screwed math to even come close to making that claim..
KKDragonLord 5 months ago
@KKDragonLord Hitler was more atheist than he was religious but even if you want to throw him in the religious camp he's body count doesn't come close to a single communist dictator like Mao let alone the dozens of others of the 20th century.
melonbarmonster 5 months ago
@melonbarmonster
Hitler was a CHRISTIAN, and the church NEVER excomunicated him.
MrNikolaid 5 months ago
@melonbarmonster
You are wrong, religious folk killed MORE than atheists and agnostics.
MrNikolaid 5 months ago
Does anybody know a website where the similarities between the various religions are pointed out? Like Cenk said the Flood for instance or the virgin birth and the death and reincarnation after three days.
RottenRroses 7 months ago
@RottenRroses It's called the Christ Myth Theory. Cenk probably got this out of "Religulous" and trust me, anyone who studies this stuff will tell you that the Christ Myth Theory 100% bogus. A popular example is that the Persian god Krishna was also born to a virgin, and considering that Krishna's mother had eight children before him.....yeah, enough said.
JRserver 5 months ago
Cenk is soooo ok, I like the guy. Right thinking at the right time ;)
armelix73 7 months ago
il send u an email, forgive me if i can't respond in the amount of characters given in these stupid miniblogs
tamu77095 7 months ago
@giftedkidrules victims. Although, not much since I'm a poor college student that works two waiting jobs to try and get myself through college. Although, I can easily see why you chose Christianity. Your judgmental and arrogant ways thrive right through my computer screen. Enjoy living in your little fantasy world you fucking prick.
Buck2120 8 months ago
@giftedkidrules So... I assume you are trying (and failing to) argue that since you met no atheists in Joplin that atheists do not volunteer or give monetarily to charity, is the correct? I find it hard to believe that you would ask every single worker there what religion, if any, that he/she professed to be. I volunteer with 3 local charities when I have spare time. Just because many are not physically able to help it does not hinder on monetary support. I gave as much as I could to support the
Buck2120 8 months ago
wow i'd expected a younger audience for a secular show, i guess they all went to a hitchens debate that night
xtrmsprts 10 months ago
@xtrmsprts Maybe they were watching Dr. Craig serve Hitchen's ass on a plate.
oodlesofosz 9 months ago
i know that most christians never read the bible and if they read it they only read the part their preachers tell them to. And christians are full of hate when it come to other people and other religions. I believe christianity is a threat to humanity. hitler was a devout christian.
glower125 10 months ago
@glower125 Yeah cus you go to sleep in fear that a priest is going to kick your door down and kill you. Fucking moron.
oodlesofosz 9 months ago
@glower125 Your logic is flawed. You can't base a religion's influence on a group of people just because they believe in that religion. You might not even believe in religious at all and be an extremest that wants to overthrow governments. Just like they say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", it's true of religion and everything else. You're referring to "sheep" that don't think for themselves in post. Guess what, those sheep are sheep no matter what religion they follow.
shadowedge69 8 months ago
@glower125 face it. you don't know most christians. though there are a lot of evil christians, i don't attribute this to them being (or claiming to be) christian. religion is not a threat to humanity, BAD PEOPLE are a threat to humanity. hitler was a master of persuasion that used pathos, people's vulnerability, and probably a commonality such as christianity to gain the people's love by showing that he related to them. that's politics baby.
redstickwoman 8 months ago
@redstickwoman i agree with you in that bad ppl are the real threat to a humanity, but religion helps. religion, especially teachings in the bible help. I mean jesus supported slavery and never refuted racism or forms of intolerance, or for that matter any sadistic teachings in the old testament. Violence and sadistic behavior is perfectly reasonable behavior IF you believin' the books. ppl of religious moderation give cover to the 'nuts.' skeptical inquiry is well deserved
tamu77095 7 months ago
@tamu77095 but you make it sound as though i'm not a skeptic. if you're trying to call out my own personal beliefs in christianity, i treat the old testamant as more of an historical account of christianity than a religious text, especially when you consider all of the re-translating, the obvious influence of the culture and time period during which it was written and people who have contributed (and taken away.) people's lack of ability to contextualize is what gives birth to the nuts.
redstickwoman 7 months ago
@tamu77095 p.s., give me an example of when jesus actively supported slavery. i want to hear this
redstickwoman 7 months ago
i have never known that Cenk is that fat.
glower125 10 months ago
Cenk you're an Atheist not Agnostic. Watch this clip "Agnostics Suck! - Penn Point" /watch?v=CTWlQaZ0DWo&feature=player_embedded
DerrenBrown100 10 months ago
Man do I hate religious people who are fanatics. As long as a person isn't a religious fanatic,then I'll respect their religious beliefs.
98bigbutt 11 months ago
@98bigbutt
Nah, I think that only gets me as far as protecting their rights. When it comes to actual respect, I don't even care if they're liberal or moderate about it. When they're defending irrational dangerous bullshit (circumcision, degrading science education, heterosexual supremacy, and so on) I'm gonna call them out as enablers - they enable, defend and rationalise extremist behaviour.
PurushaDesa 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PurushaDesa,Actually that's the point that I'm trying to make.
98bigbutt 11 months ago
@PurushaDesa I don't really care if they do it to themselves but when they try to force it on others like circumcising babies, that's messed up. That's why I dislike it when children teach their kids to believe in god. If you believe they should have that information then ok but don't portray it as fact, show them all sides and let them decide.
gbushimprov 10 months ago
@98bigbutt I feel the same way, it seems to be a rare sentiment among atheists on the Internet nowadays.
VolatileReaction 11 months ago
Death to religion
StuartGilliganGriff 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
google ZWI MIGDAL
Google Sanhedrin 106a google Toledot Yeshu
From the JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA: "Khazars, a non-semitic
xanderkhaan 11 months ago
*Truthiness decides to argue the same point to a wall, because it has a slightly higher probability of understanding*
Truthiness231 1 year ago
@Truthiness231 Code for "I'm running for cover because I have no idea what I'm hell I'm talking about on this subject". I accept your apology. It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong :P
JRserver 1 year ago
First, religion is provably bogus whether or not you think he existed (or indeed whether or not he even existed), so let's move past that. I concede that a man named Jesus existed. Now what? It doesn't change reality in any way, shape, or form that he existed. Now, if you think he existed AND think he had magic powers comparable to Aquaman, that's a mental disorder you're working on.
Why do you not believe Zeus, Thor, and/or Ra ever existed? There's plenty of old stories that say so...
Truthiness231 1 year ago
@Truthiness231 Your opinion of religion as "provably bogus" is nothing more than that, your opinion, and I frankly don't give a damn about that in this argument. I presenting the fact that Jesus - not some random fellow named Jesus, the one described in the New Testament - did exist as a historical figure, which is now accepted beyond any reasonble doubt by everyone intellient person on Earth, believer or non-believer.
JRserver 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JRserver "Your opinion of religion as "provably bogus" is nothing more than that, your opinion..."
Nope, it's demonstrable true if you just read the damn bible...
Truthiness231 1 year ago
@Truthiness231 Thor, Zeus and Ra were never said be historical figures. Your confusing mythology for history.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver "Thor, Zeus and Ra were never said be historical figures. Your confusing mythology for history."
So the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans just thought they were worshiping mythological creatures? Were that true (it isn't), I'd have to give them credit for being more honest about their religion than you are with yours.
Truthiness231 1 year ago
@Truthiness231 Well, bring on the credit, then, since their stories are, in fact, classified within the realm of mythology, not history, which apparantly still can't tell apart.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver I think you missed the point: there is equal proof for any story of magic people creating the universe (ie none).
Zeus = Yahweh = Thor = Ra = Allah = Vishnu = Unicorns
Still waiting for you to show me how someone writing about a man named Jesus years after he died is somehow proof that one of those specific magic invisible people that just came into existence and created everything else is really out there watching everything.
Truthiness231 1 year ago
@Truthiness231 Apparantly, you missed what the entire argument was about, so let me make this very clear:
I. DO. NOT. GIVE. A. FUCK. WHAT. YOUR. OPINION. OF. GOD/RELIGION/THEISTIC BELIEF. IS.
What I was arguing about here is the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of modern religions, which is being denied by Cenk in this video and you and others in this thread, because it opens the door to the POSSIBILITY of having a faith. THAT, and that ALONE, is what I have arguing here.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver And as I said, the history of religion is not merit for anything. And on the "possibility of having faith" (where "faith" is defined as "believing something is true without a reason"), then yes anything is "grounds for having faith"; the tides coming in and going out is enough for Bill O'Reilly to have faith in magic sky daddies.
Truthiness231 1 year ago
@Truthiness231 Try to follow this:
Jesus Christ was said to have been the Son of God, performed miracles, died on a cross, rose three days later, etc.
Historians cneturies later are able to verify that that person did, in fact, exist, as a historical person, meaning that he may or may not have held the aformentioned attributes.
Ergo, people must decide for themselves if he did or not.
Cenk and Truthiness231 are afraid of what people might decide, so they push the Christ Myth Theory? Get it?
JRserver 1 year ago
@Truthiness231 In other words, contrary to your shallow, shortsighted analysis, history is merit for plenty with respect to religion. There is no doubt, at this point, that Jesus of Nazareth did walk the Earth. Historians, be they Christian, Jewish, or non-believer all agree on this point, and those who are not believers can live with the prospect of other people holding faith, because they know that history has left that door open.
JRserver 1 year ago
@Truthiness231 You and Cenk, on the other hand, cannot, and so you push the Christ Myth Theory while trying to minimize the impact that informed people can make on this debate by saying that A Jesus existed. However, the facts just aren't on your side on this onpal. You're fighting a losing battle. Give it up.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver ROFL, M'kay. Here we go again...
I don't doubt a Jesus existed. I'm fairly sure multiple people named Jesus have existed...
Let's just forget any possible doubt that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I'll concede he did exist if it will move the argument forward. From this point forward, I - for all practical purposes - believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed.
Now what? Even if you could prove conclusively that he was magically (evidence missing), that alone wouldn't be proof of a deity.
Truthiness231 1 year ago
@Truthiness231 I never said it would be. I said it opened the door to that possibility, no more, no less.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver But then the existence of US armed forces is enough for the possibility of faith of cargo cults: watch?v=zWjGwBpLZdY (it's a religion that formed when Americans blew the minds of islanders who had never seen anything close to our tech, and because they couldn't comprehend how we had the ability to make planes and guns, they assumed Americans were gods).
Having the possibility to think something true without reason is meaningless. Big deal if you have a "reason" to not have a reason.
Truthiness231 1 year ago
@Truthiness231 That's a pretty Apples and Oranges comparison, since technology as we think of it did not exist 2,000 years ago. In any case, whatever opinion on the divinity or non-divinity of Jesus you give is of no greater or lesser value than one I might give, which is why I stated from the get go that the divinity of Jesus was not the argument I was making here.
JRserver 1 year ago
Why would we hope that there is a higher consciousness? What is the point in that? Human beings are clearly…CLEARLY enough to contemplate for a whole lifetime. I think that agnostics need to get on the atheist bandwagon...We need you agnostics...Your no good on the fence!
Jeffersonwazright 1 year ago
Comment removed
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Oh, really? It is? Okay, so then what makes the likelihood of Jesus being divine any more or less than Buddah? How does someone like yourself who claims to value intellectual honesty and historical voracity decide which potentially divine person to dedicate their lives to?
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion That's up to me, but since it has no effect on your faith or lack thereof, I don't see why it should matter to you.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver It matters greatly to me because your actions as a human being inherently effect the future of our species. What you teach to your 3 children they'll teach to their 9 children and so on. This is why this nonsense has to be stopped. Or are you going to argue that I have no right to be concerned about the future mental health of human beings?
So tell me, how does one reconcile which deity they chose? Why aren't you a Buddhist? At least they're deeply intelligent people.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Well, I'll teach my children whatever the hell I want, they'll grow up to be just a smart as everyone else, and you'll sit there and like it.
And again, reconciling which deity I choose is my business and no one elses.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver So you have no concern if you're teaching your children intellectual poison? None at all? Isn't it your responsibility as a parent to look out for their well being? If you're teaching them, what will be looked at in a few hundred years as nothing more than Greek mythology, as if it is pure fact, you're doing them a great disservice and I think that's bullocks.
Your inability to explain the reconciliation process makes me think you can't reconcile it. Willfully dishonest to yourself?
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion You calling something intellectual poison doesn't make it so. By pushing the Chirst Myth thoery, you are, in fact, teaching intellectual poison, since that is DEMONSTRABLY false. As I've said before, I don't give a damn what anyone thinks of my beliefs, but I do care about facts, and that's why I will continue to argue against the Christ Myth theory.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Oh I can PROVE it's not JUST intellectual poison—it's moral and ethical poison as well. It directly poisons your deepest desires for honesty which inherently effects every facet of your thoughts which require integrity. You have no idea and are oblivious to it. It took me a long time to regain that after believing this garbage as a kid. There is nothing in the world that feels better internally than knowing you're man enough to be honest with yourself about EVERYTHING.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Yawn.
JRserver 1 year ago
(not to mention if you have any value of integrity or strength in your faith, you'd happily supply me with several reason... one would think!)
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Why is that? I don't have to justify my own beliefs to anyone but myself, and they only need justify theirs to themselves and to hell with what everyone else thinks.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Because if your beliefs can't stand up to scrutiny, what value could they possibly have? Rather simple.. isn't it?
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Beliefs, by their very nature, are subjective. Then again, by pushing the Christ Myth Theory in the face of scholarly opposition, I must admit that you are validating your point that beliefs that run up against the facts have no value if they don't stand up to scrunity.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Scholars don't oppose the christ myth theory because they understand what it means. It is not denying that a man named jesus walked the earth - it is denying that a man named jesus who was the actual son of god walked the earth. As I've explained countless times, the former does not matter - the LATTER does! But I'm truly tired of this argument.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Once again, the Christ Myth theory is the notion the Jesus never lived as a historical figure and that his story in the Bible is a knockoff of pagan myths, neither of which the scholarly community supports. As I'VE explained countless times.
I hope you're serious about leaving this time, bub.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver What scholarly community? You cant just say that and expect it to fly.
Jeffersonwazright 1 year ago
@Jeffersonwazright What scholarly community? You do realize that historians make a good living studying the Bible and other Holy Books and their historical context, and anyone who'se done anyone research into the topic will readily agree that historians across the board reject the Christ Myth theory.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Once again. What scholars? And please don't do a search to answer my question. Just answer the question. If you have to do a search I would rather you just not reply me becaue that means you are just spouting things to try and win without facts. And please do not say Lee Strobel.
Jeffersonwazright 1 year ago
@Jeffersonwazright Wasn't gonna cite Lee Strobel, but I was gonna cite names such as Bart Ehrman, Marvin Meyer, John Dominic Crossan, Elaine Pagels, Paula Fredrickson, Edwin Yamanuchi, Chris Forbes, Edwin R. Bevan, David Ulansey, S.G.F. Brandon, R. Joseph Hoffman, William G. Dever, Darrel L. Bock, Ben Witherington III, Richard Bauckham, and Luke Timothy Johnson, to name a few. Would you like some more? I'd be happy to provide some more!
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver I can tell you had to do research on those names because they all appear to be perfectly cited. You did not quote those from your brain I know that.....and I also do not care to look into them to see if you are telling the truth although i have read some of Ehrman. I do not recall him establishing Yeshua as an authentic human being but I suppose it is possible. I believe he strictly critiqued the historicity of scripture.
Jeffersonwazright 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jeffersonwazright "I can tell you had to do research on those names because they all appear to be perfectly cited. You did not quote those from your brain I know that."
Yeah, it's called doing the research to come to an informed opinion. Look into it. And anyway, do you expect me to commit the name of every biblical scholar to memory for them to be legitimate.
I refer you to the video "Bart Ehrman vs Infidel Guy". Ehrman, hardly a devout believer, lays out Yeshua as an authentic human being
JRserver 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jeffersonwazright "I can tell you had to do research on those names because they all appear to be perfectly cited. You did not quote those from your brain I know that."
Yeah, it's called doing the research to come to an informed opinion. Look into it. And anyway, do you expect me to commit the name of every biblical scholar to memory for them to be legitimate?
I refer you to the video "Bart Ehrman vs Infidel Guy". Ehrman, hardly a devout believer, lays out Yeshua as an authentic human being
JRserver 1 year ago
I concur fully with what was said at 5:37
I remember it was when I was studying the creation of the Abrahamic faiths and how/where they spread that I first started questioning if I should be taking anything on faith. It wasn't until I became a complete skeptic that I was able to shed it completely, but without the history I'm not so sure I would have ever gotten out of the particular mindset theism puts one in.
Truthiness231 1 year ago
@Truthiness231 You would probably really enjoy talking to TruthSurge - sounds like you have had similar lives :)
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion On the TruthSurge plug: thanks, I actually do enjoy his talks. Eerily, he sounds a lot like me and has my same speech patterns (even the rambling tangents, which I try to keep nicely contained in parenthesis)... divine inspiration maybe? =P
And on that quote from Stephen Roberts: I tend to go to the same videos as you and I'm always using that line (it shuts people up a large percentage of the time), so as long as you keep favoriting/liking videos that quote will appear ^.^
Truthiness231 1 year ago
@Truthiness231 hahahahaahahah excellent. TS is a good [online] friend of mine - very entertaining and educated for sure! The similar name combined with your story and I couldn't help bring him up :)
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
the internet is freeing everyone's minds from lies.
religion, capitalism,etc.
frvfilms 1 year ago
Cenk is anti-black
Introspective91 1 year ago
I <3 Cenk
lisamaria1972 1 year ago
@genie0390 So you used "genie" in your name because you don't Arabs?
What?
JustChrisLTD 1 year ago
proud of ya man!
horbergaren 1 year ago
Listen to Cenk at 5:52 parroting the throughly debunked Christ Myth Theory. Cenk, the easiest way for any non-belieber to instantly lose all credibility is to try to push this ill-researched and utterly inaccurate piece of pseudo-scholarship. There's a reason why the entire scholarly community rejects the Christ Myth theory, and accepting this fact doesn't even force one to be a Christian. Bill Mahaer tried it, Dawkins tried it, Hitchens tried it, and they all failed, because it's not true,
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver
Can you send me links that prove the Christ Myth Theory has been "thoroughly" debunked? I'm interested in reading about them.
lzf15 1 year ago
@lzf15 Sent it to your inbox. Since I can't post links on the comments section, anyone else interested should look up "Dr. Chris Forbes on Zeitgeist part 1" or "Bart Ehrman VS Atheist The Infidel Guy". Hope these help. Cheers.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver It might be possible that a historical figure named Jesus existed, but the miracles he performed are all bunk.
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram Believing that the miracles, divinity, resurrection, etc. are all bunk is your perogative, but there's no "might be possible" about it when it comes to the existence of Jesus. The entire scholarly community agrees on this matter, and I would ask you or Cenk to name one of the these other prophets who dies and rise three days later, and if it's Horus, Attis, Dionysis, Mithras, or Krishna, don't bother, they've all be refuted. You're entitled to your own opinion, NOT your own facts.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver So the entire scholarly community agrees that Jesus did rise from the dead?? LOL... you've gotta be kidding me?
The entire scholarly community DOES NOT agree on the existence of a man named Jesus, btw.
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram No, they offer a no comment on the former, as it is not within the ability of historians to determine that validity of the resurrection, which, at no point, did I say that they did affirm or deny. They simply say that esus performed feats which those around him believed miraculous, or even godlike, and they leave it at that.
And yes, they entire scholarly community DOES agree on the existence of Jesus. but don't take my word for it. Ask a few Biblical scholars.
Go ahead, ask 'em
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Biblical scholars have a presupposition, that Jesus existed, because they are all Christians of one ilk or another. Try asking an actual objective historian if Jesus existed.
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram I have - his name is Bart Ehrman. Not exactly a Christian in any sense of the term.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver There are ZERO contemporary accounts during the life of Jesus, for one. :D
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram To quote Bart Ehrman, that is also the case of countless historical figures whose existence we affirm. I refer you to the video "Bart Ehrman vs Infidel Guy" here on Youtube.
And I'm still waiting to here of these other prophets who died and rose three days later. Just make sure to skip over Horus, Attis, Dionysis, Mithras, and Krishna.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver By that logic, Krishna is also a historical figure whose existence we affirm. At least Hindu's do. And Allah is also a historical figure whose existence we affirm. At least Muslims do. :D
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram Uh, no.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Uh yeah... Muslims affirm that Allah is a historical figure, just like Christians affirm that their God is a historical figure.
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram "Allah" is the Arabic word for God. Crack open a book, sometime.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Allah has a different prophet, Muhammed, thus not the same God. Muslim's don't accept Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit as part of the trinity, they have ONE God, thus not the same God. :D
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram You REALLY need to talk to a few Muslims about the status that Jesus holds in Islam.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Jesus Christ is NOT considered divine according to Islam. Sorry, you fail.
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram No, be he is a highly revered prophet in Islam, which, by the way, refers to Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since all claim a common patriarch in Abraham. Sorry, YOU fail.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver So what if he's a highly revered prophet in Islam. He's not the most highly revered. And why if Islam recognizes Christians and Jews as part of the club do they say "Die Heretic" to Jews and Christians? YOU fail. :D
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram Again, you BADLY need to bone on your knowledge of Islam/talk to some actual Muslims, who I'm sure who react incredulously to many of the descriptions you have given of what they believe.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Muslims don't believe in the divinity of Jesus. And that Jesus wasn't the last prophet, Muhammed was (according to Islam). Those are the ONLY claims I have made in regard to Islam. If you don't believe me, perhaps YOU need to do some research and talk to ACTUAL Muslims.
Btw... why if Christ is soooo revered in the Muslim world, will a Muslim be put to death if he chooses to join Christianity (this is in the Middle East, not America).
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram Really? Then you should know that Muslims agree with Christians in the virgin birth part of the Christ story.
On the second point, I can't say, but I don't see how the question is relevant to anything in this conversation, since the fact that Jesus is so highly revered in Islam IS that, a fact.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver If Muslims really believed in the virgin birth part of the Christ Story, Jesus would have to be divine according to Islamic doctrine. Muslims think of Jesus as another prophet. Muhammed is the superior prophet to Jesus.
atheistram 1 year ago
Comment removed
JRserver 1 year ago
@atheistram Quick Question - Have you ever picked up a Quran or ANY holy text, or do you just take the word of whatever Cenk Uygur, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, etc. tell you a particular religious group believes? I'm inclined to think the latter based on your previous statement and the rest of what you have posted on this thread.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver I have read the Qu'ran, the Baghvad Gita, and the Bible in their entireity, multiple times. :)
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram No, you clearly haven't, or you would know that Muslims do believe in the virgin birth, and even call Jesus "The Messiah", though not the Son of God. Bone up on the Qu'ran, the Bible. and the Baghvad Gita, then we'll talk.
JRserver 1 year ago
Comment removed
atheistram 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JRserver Give me the verse in the Qu'ran that says all that. I will look it up myself. If you can't or won't then you admit you're a liar.
atheistram 10 months ago
@JRserver Btw... just because Christianity is unique does not make it true. :)
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram How is that relevant?
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver It's relevant because you're making a big deal about how Christianity is the ONLY religion that has a prophet die and rise from the dead three days later. :)
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram That has zero bearing on whether Jesus performed miracles, died and rose three days later, etc. My point is that Jesus did exist as a historical figure and Cenk's claim that Christianity is a knock off of earlier religions is demonstrably false. Anything beyond that is irrelevant to this discussion.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Actually Christ's birthday which is Christmas is a knock off of earlier religions. As is Easter, Passover, etc.
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram Wrong. The Bible does not give a date for the birth of Jesus; Dec. 25 was appointed to him in open knowledge that the date was unknown.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Still didn't answer my allegation that Easter and Passover were originally pagan holidays.
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram That has something to do with them never having been pagan holidays. The point isn't even worth addressing.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver They were pagan holidays before the Christians stole them. That's my point.
atheistram 1 year ago
@atheistram Christians "stole" them in that the put Christmas and Easter on the dates that the pagans had celebrated them on, in open knowledge that the actual dates of both Christmas and Easter were unknown.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Sorry but you're deeply mistaken. The Christ Myth is very much legitimate. Yes, there are historical accounts which are quite compelling to most scholars that a man named Jesus who had followers existed. However, not a single one of them validates any supernatural miracles or even makes mention of them. So what importance is that? How does this validate the claims of christianity at all? It doesn't, and that is why Dawkins, Hitchens and Maher, et al still point this out.
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion I'm sure it is very much legitimate to those who have an allergy to the topic of religious history, but the entire histroical and scholarly community agrees that the existence of Jesus cannot be disputed.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Did you have a hard time comprehending my words? Let's try this again, read it slowly outloud to yourself if you need, okay?
"Yes, there are historical accounts which are quite compelling to most scholars that a man named Jesus who had followers existed. However, not a single one of them validates any supernatural miracles or even makes mention of them."
What importance is it that Jesus' existence is proven when the most important part OF his existence (DIVINE MIRACLES) can NOT be?
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion I believe I already addressed this question with my comment, "As I've pointed out before, this by no means validates the miraculous/supernatural elements of the Christ story, but Dawkins, Hicthens, Maher, Uygur, etc. take it a step further and claim he never existed because they know that while the fact that Jesus existed doesn't validate his divinity, that does open the door to the possibility of faith."
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Let's try this.. fictional hypothetical story: Pythagoras was said to have lived some 2500 years ago and it was claimed he could turn trees into gold, travel on a magic carpet and was even immortal with the exception of uranium, which is how he died. Pythagoras was said to be a god *because* of his supernatural powers. 2500 years later, we look back to find no mention of these powers by any historians, but we DO find he WAS a real man. Say this is real... Q: WOULD HE MATTER TODAY?
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Your're missing the point, friend. Historians agree that Jesus did exist and he performed feats that appeared miraculous to those around him, and leave it at that. You, Dawkins, Uygur, Harris, Maher, and Hitchens all know that this is all it definitively proves, but you also know that by allowing for his existence, that means that maybe he did perform miracles, maybe he didn't, and people have to make up their own minds, and your scared of what conclusion they might reach.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver Historians acknowledge his *existence* —NOT his miracles. That is the entire POINT of the Christ Myth.
1. Why the HELL would christianity require FAITH if there were simply EVIDENCE to prove this crap????
2. There is no "MIGHT" about it — if some dude walked on water, raised people from the dead, and ALL this other stuff — why is there NO mention of it outside of the bible?
If his MIRACLES make him DIVINE, and the miracles are unsubstantiated, SO IS HIS DIVINITY. Do you get it?
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion You might wanna actually google the Christ Myth sometime, friend. The Wikipedia page for "Jesus Myth Theory" describes it as "is the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was not an historical person, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community". That goes a little further than saying, "He lived, but didn't turn water into wine."
On your other "points", see previous comment.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver omg the title alone should clue you buddy! THEORY = SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. LOL I mean wow bro. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, he lived but never walked on water and thus, was not divine. His divinity hinges on the miraculous nature of the claims in the bible. If he didn't walk on water, he didn't rise from the dead. Do you follow?
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion oops title alone should clue you IN*, buddy! rather :)
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion And what, pray tell, is the evidence that you've come across that Jesus never lived as a historical figure that I and the entire scholarly community, which views the theory as total BS, appear to have missed friend?
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver "Biblical scholar L. Michael White, not himself a Jesus-myth theorist, writes ... so far as we know, Jesus did not write anything, nor did anyone who had personal knowledge of him. There is no archeological evidence of his existence. There are no contemporaneous accounts of his life or death: no eyewitness accounts, or any other kind of first-hand record. All the accounts of Jesus come from decades or centuries later; the gospels themselves all come from later times ..."
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Friend, for every historian you can cite that doubts the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, I can cite a dozen who believe he did. If you REALLY want to go down that road, I'd be happy, to engage in that debate, but be forewarned, you are going to lose.
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver What are you talking about? I'm referencing a biblical scholar...?!?! I'm referencing someone FROM YOUR TEAM. LOL *facepalm* *headdesk* *tearsofblood*
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago