41. SeanMcDowell - Where Should I Start?

[Mathenaut]

This is so deceptive.

[Hufflewaffle]

If you are truly interested it makes sense to study ALL world religions both present day and historical. Study religion as a subject, learn about the psychological aspects, the social functions, the anthropological aspect, but study it with as unbiased an attitude as you can muster. Then come back to this video and watch it again.

[atheistprophet5760]

Jesus is as much of a "miracle worker" as Benny Hinn (who was proven to be a charlatan by CBC news) Christianity is not testable--unless you want to call the overwhelming failure of prayer as proof. That's proof alright, of either no god, or a god that does not care. Almost every religion has "evidence" of miracles. Christianity is NOT unique. It is plagiarized. Buddha was FAR more realistic.

I can prove jesus is not god--but you will have to wait for the book...:)

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 Lol no you can't disprove Jesus, stop being so full of yourself. Christianity is testable and therefore falsifiable. In addition, you clearly do not understand prayer and you have much research to do on religion if you think Christianity bears resemblance to other so-called religions...

I can't wait for that book of yours to come out when you don't even understand the topics you're addressing.

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS Christianity is not "testable" otherwise you would have "evidence" of your god, and not just "faith" that he exists. See how that works? Study the H-D method. Prayer has been PROVEN via the H-D method to be ineffective. It's no more effective than wishful thinking. And my view isn't narrow minded. In fact, I will embrace any god that is PROVEN.There is as much, or more evidence for Zeus and Brahman as there is for Jesus, and even more for unicorns! (Greek, Chinese, and the bible!)

[stregan7]

@atheistprophet5760 I love how when I show you that your argument is useless, you just forget it ever happened and go onto a different video...making more useless comments. You aren't searching for the truth. You are searching for fights to pick and when you meet your match, you continue on somewhere else. Typical.

Your arguments are TERRIBLE! I'm not sure how it's possible that you are "Professor of Philosophy and Religion." What school? Please, tell us

I even offered to continue via email

[M3PanoS]

@stregan7 There's no way this guy is a professor of philosophy and religion, he resembles a troll too much...

[atheistprophet5760]

@stregan7 I did not see your response in my email (I get busy at times) and I also gave you my email address--with no response from you. I shall give you a response today.

If my arguments are so "terrible" as you claim, please feel free to go to my blog and refute my arguments against WL Craig. I dare you. I even have one against Josh McDowell and the trinity. The only way you can legitimately say my arguments are terrible, is if you can offer a better counter argument.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 My bad, for calling you a dude.

Now, I already told you, Jesus Christ was a historical figure so Christianity is *not* just as testable as any other religion as you'd like to think.. NO other religion has that. If you aren't willing to acknowledge this point then I can rightfully conclude that you are lying, dodging, conniving, etc, etc...

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 1) Yes, Christianity is testable, bring me the body of Christ or test the Bible against what we see in the world. Dur.

2) Like I said before, you don't understand prayer, and the fact that you would point out an experiment thinking it disproves the effect of prayer only furthers my initial point.

3) No, there is no evidence for these so-called other gods outside of the imagination from which they came -Jesus was a historical figure. Stop lying to yourself and to others.

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS Christianity is as "testable" as Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and many other religions. The Bhagavad Gita and Dhammapada were written way before the bible, and have historical references to Krishna and Buddha being REAL.  So there goes your claim for Yahweh and Jesus being the only TWO gods out the window. Prayer is ineffective. See the scientific studies which you can look up on the net. I suggest Fred Rosner's study.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 Liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, LIAR.

The Bhagavad Gita and Dhammapada are how many books exactly? Written by how many people? Claiming what about reality? Go for it, I'm warning you though, I'm gonna laugh.

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS And the bible is how many books, written by authors UNKNOWN--especially the ones you claim as the "gospels"? You trust unknown authors with your "salvation"--hmmm...now THAT is funny.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 UNKNOWN IN WHAT SENSE? In the sense that the name attributed to them may be wrong? How does that have any bearing on the content within the writing?

A lot of the prophets were obscure, unknown people, however, I fail to realize how that has any bearing on what was written. Would you be happy if the Bible was comprised of books written by Alexander the Great, Caesar and the Prince of Persia?

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS And how does your question about the authors and books of the Bhagavad Gita and Dhammapada have anything to do with whether or not they wrote about Krisha and Buddha? Just like the bible has many books with many authors--most UNKNOWN, yet you believe every word these unknown authors wrote, and accept it as proof. Therefore, you are trusting unknown authors with your salvation without evidence or argument to support it. Even my boss asked for a reference--lol.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 Because those authors claim absolutely NOTHING about the natural world. If you call what I did to you ad hominem, then I can say you're throwing out these authors' works based on ad hominem because you think that they shouldn't be trusted because of their origins. You're doing the opposite of arguing to authority retard. I'm not saying to trust these books -don't trust them, TEST them. And you'll find only the Bible comes out alive. Shit's weak son.

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS The other religious texts I mentioned stand up as well, if not better to the test of historicity and any other verifiable test.The only thing keeping you from being rational on this subject is your "blind prejudice." It is not about the authors themselves, it is the fact that they wrote inconsistent, contradictory, and misquoted from the Old Testament.They copy/pasted from other religions, the multitudes of failed prophecies, known embellishments, hyperbole, etc.-therefore, UNRELIABLE.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 No the other religious texts don't stand up to scrutiny, that is a completely unfounded claim. Blind prejudice my ass, you don't know how many texts I've read before I came to the Bible, you just assume I believe it because I was raised that way.

There are no irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible, failed prophecies or known embellishments. This is an argument that gets into interpretation, something I don't want to get into.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 And to the statement: "I will embrace any god that is PROVEN."

I would much love to know what would constitute an adequate proof for you. This should be interesting...

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS Proof would be what is verifiable and falsifiable. Can you "verify" that your particular god, as opposed to Zeus, or Brahman for instance, created the universe? No, you cannot. Nor can you prove that it was your particular as opposed to the Great Spirit" that created the universe--or any other god or goddess for that matter. And FYI-- I am NOT a man.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 First off, that is not the question I ask you -I asked what would constitute adequate proof. Be a man, er a woman, and answer, otherwise you have no place to offer criticism in this debate.

Second, I can verify that Jesus existed and fulfilled prophecies within the OT. So if He fulfilled all these prophecies and claimed to be God, explain to me how is it that you can claim that He isn't?

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS I just told you what I would consider "proof"--that would be that you can "verify" that your particular god created the universe as opposed to the "Great Spirit." You seem to have trouble comprehending English.

I can "verify" that Krisha existed. He dictated his thoughts to Prince Arjuna. The so-called "prophecies" are not. Even Jesus' prophecy failed when he said the "kingdom of heaven is "near"  i.e. in the lifetimes of the disciples.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 Lol, you just defined proof, you didn't tell me what would constitute proof. SO let me rephrase the question for you since you seem to be the one that doesn't comprehend English. Here it is, read carefully, if you decline to answer, then I ask you to shut up and leave:

How could God make Himself known to us in a way that is 'verifiable' and 'falsifiable.'

There I used your own wording too, if you dodge this question, I'm done with you.

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS Of course you will be "done with me" because you cannot provide the evidence I asked for! If you can't prove it is your particular god as opposed to The Great Spirit, then have your god come over to my house and turn this glass of water into a lovely glass of chablis--I mean, if he could do it in Cana, he could do it for me too.

I will offer you the same challenge I offered another poster. Refute my arguments against WL Craig on my blog--if you dare.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 You are outright stupid. I don't usually talk like this because it only reflects badly on me and the wider Christian community, but I have sincere reason to believe that you are willingly circumscribing the questions I am raising and it's pissing me off. I asked you what would constitute proof, you refused to answer. I said I would be done with you if you did that, and so I'm peacing out. Later.

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS Another Christian resorting to ad hominem--how pathetic. I told you the "proof" I required, and what is required as the definition of "proof." If you cannot deliver--that is your problem.

Run Christian run! It's what they all do when they cannot answer the tough questions.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 Ad hominem is only fallacious when it is initially posited to discredit another's position. I'm merely using it to ridicule your intellect though. Let me give you a short syllogism for why I think your a dumbass, therefore warranting my ad hominem. :D

P1: I asked atheist to tell me what would constitute proof for God.

P2: Atheist misconstrued the question and asked me to provide proof.

C: Therefore, it follows that atheist didn't understand my question.

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS Lololol--like Forrest Gump said, "stupid is as stupid does"--you do not even know how to construct a proper syllogism. It is clear you are using ad hominem instead of addressing the argument because you have no argument, and/or do not know what an argument is in logical terms.

I told you what would constitute proof for your particular god, as opposed to any other god, as well as any sound valid argument or verifiable evidence. BTW link to site works now.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 SHOW me where my syllogism went wrong dipshit; don't just sit there and accuse it of being wrong. Anyone can do that. Saying 'stupid is as stupid does', although you probably thought was clever when you wrote it, is not even applicable here -the funny thing is, that that statement in and of itself is circular, yet you try to accuse me of faulty logic. You chose the wrong example to try and prove a point. LOLOL

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 SHOW me where my syllogism went wrong dipshit; don't just sit there and accuse it of being wrong. Anyone can do that. Saying 'stupid is as stupid does', although you probably thought was clever when you wrote it, is not even applicable here -the funny thing is, that that statement in and of itself is circular, yet you try to accuse me of faulty logic. You chose the wrong example to try and prove a point. LOLOL

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS First of all, P1 is not a categorical proposition. A categorical proposition is a statement that makes a straightforward proposition--not "show me something," or asking a question. Your attempted syllogism is invalid, as it does not have the correct logical form and is nonsensical. BTW--it is "you're a dumbass," --and I mean that sincerely.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 That is a categorical proposition actually, since the proposition is my specific request. This is stupid. It took you more than an hour to come up with this stupid semantically driven objection? And it has perfect logical form. You can answer in another hour if you want, but I'm not answering again, I just feel like I'm validating your pathetic efforts at argumentation.

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS I just got back from dinner--I do have a life you know. A request is a kind of categorical proposition that is used in a valid categorical syllogism. As such, it is invalid. Furthermore, if it was valid, I provided you with what I would count as proof of your god--as you requested--which means your P2 is false. So it is not a valid syllogism, nor is it sound.  I'm going to have my dessert now...:)

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 And just for the record, I tried accessing your website through your YouTube page and the link didn't work -even after I added the .com myself. I'm sure it wouldn't have been worth it anyways though, since I doubt you even understand most of the arguments Craig puts forth.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 Btw, the fact that you posted this comment on this particular video is indicative of the fact that you did not come here to listen to the video, since one of your grievances was actually addressed in it, but that you came here only to spew your narrow minded agenda, while ironically most likely thinking of yourself as a liberated, free thinker that has cast off the shackles of religion.

[k0smon]

It is questionable whether Jesus claimed to be God. Only John mentions it. It was not part of Jesus teachings. He prayed to his Father, not to his brother. See Bart Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted".

[clayisajedi444]

Very fascinating. I like how he gave credit to a friend when could have easily taken the idea as his own.

[eancarana]

@v33punk: and just to round out the point: 4. This is simply a non-sequitar. No religion other than Xianity and Mormonism has Jesus as a central figure to contend with in order for their own beliefs systems to be valid. The vast majority of religious and secular worldviews that have ever existed ignore Abrahamic religions altogether. McDowell's insular, ignorant, and arrogant point of view that privileges Xianity is a logical consequence of Xian teachings.

[eancarana]

@v33punk: 3. Then McDowell missed the meaning also, because his statement "you can live like it is true" applies to his next statement about other religions: "somebody is going to have to live some way that contradicts what the religion claims to be true." Which is equally true of Xianity; my point was that Xians are indicted for not obeying most of the commandments, because they are unfollowable, morally choose not to follow, or don't even bother to try.

[eancarana]

@v33punk: 2 (cont'd). This isn't what Xianity teaches: it doesn't say "test drive our vehicle; it's easier to drive than other cars;" it teaches "our cars are the only ones that actually work." So his reason for prospective religious seekers to "test-drive"  Xianity is disingenuous (which, ironically, is just like a stereotypical used car salesman).

[eancarana]

@v33punk: 2. You missed my point; I'm not arguing how salvation is taught in the NT to be acquired (by faith, not works).  I'm arguing McDowell using it as reason not a non-Xian to consider Xianity first before other religions: "It's easy" implies that there are other legitimate religions, spiritual paths, etc., that are equally valid, but more difficult to travel, and the extra effort required of them isn't necessary.

[eancarana]

@v33punk: 1. I didn't miss the meaning of Matthew and James; prayers asked for in God's name, with James's qualifications, go unanswered all the time. Therefore, not only are both Matthew and James wrong, but in fact it shows God to be unworthy of a covenant with us, because he does not keep his promises.

[eancarana]

3. You can live like it's true? There are over 600 commandments in the OT; how many Christians follow them, even though Jesus specified "not one jot nor tittle" was to be altered (Mathew 5: 17-20)? His commands regarding anger, lust, divorce, oaths, an eye for an eye, and loving your enemies (in the rest of Mathew 5). They aren't lived by Christians because these commands are unlivable, immoral, or both.

[v33punk]

@eancarana You totally missed the meaning of what Jesus said in verse 17. He fulfilled the law and that's why salvation is in Him alone. The Law just brings to light the fact that you can't earn salvation on your own. It's pretty simple.

[eancarana]

Hmmm....

1. Testable? Public evidence of miracles? Really? John 14:14

2. Salvation is free in Christianity? How is this a selling point for the veracity of your claims? And why are you making your religion sound like a product you are trying to sell?

[v33punk]

@eancarana 1. You need to examin what "in my name means". I refer you to James 4:2-3.

2. Salvation through Jesus is free because you don't have to do a certain amout of good works to EARN it. You just ask.

[iToyRobot]

great video

[diuryl]

well said, love his jacket!