But you see... a lot of people who were Christian or had a basic understanding of the Bible sees it as a crock because it appears to contradict itself. And with all the opposing denominations of Christianity and denominations of denominations all giving different interpretations of the same book it's really hard to blame them. But they don't understand the main point of Christianity. They just see it as a bunch of self-righteous people selfishly wanting to make it to heaven.
core, moral values and overarching themes. Without these, the Bible is useless. Things like what, generally, a Christian should be living his life doing, and things that prevent us from turning away from God. Other than that the Bible isn't essential to being a Christian. And in case anyone's wondering why I'm going through these videos and posting long comments, it's because I find these arguments very intelligent and worth my time to contradict.
@Thromnabular the bible is a horrible source of moral values. I mean look at what it's full of... a god that punishes and entire world for the sin of two people.... who slaughters and entire world of life but what is on a boat... who demands animal and later human sacrifice to appease his own hatred of what he has created. You think that's a standard to try to live by? Are you insane??
It all depends on what standard you base moral values on. We obviously all have a universal moral standard, not to kill, not to steal, not harm other humans. All of this is rubbish of course if you believe in naturalism because there is no survival reason for morality (and therefore no way to account how morality came about through evolution). But back to the point, by what standard would you judge a god or God, assuming He was real and gave you your morality?
@Thromnabular sure there is a survival reason for morality. I have a video on this. See my video "Source of Morality".
And I have to judge anything by my own human views. Genocide is wrong. A god might do it and claim a higher authority/morality, but to ME it is still evil and wrong. I would not worship a demon like your god who commits genocide. You are of course free to worship evil demons as you wish, but I think you are wrong.
Now of course that answer then begs the question, "If we can't believe some of the Bible then how can we believe ANY of the Bible?" This question was asked to me by one of my friends who has now decided to completely forgo the Bible and try to seek God without it. Admittedly, I see the logic in this. But we have to look at why God supposedly gave us the Bible in the first place, it was meant to help us, not define us. Therefore when reading the Bible the only thing that we must assume is true is
As to your question, How do you objectively choose which men to believe, if they don't have evidence? My answer is collaboration. When looking at books of the Bible, I look to see if they contradict with each other. If a contradiction occurs than it wasn't meant to be in the Bible. There is a verse that specifically mentions altering the Bible as unforgivable, I would have to assume that this was a possibility or else it wouldn't be mentioned.
@Thromnabular well the various books of the bible ARE inconsistent with each other. Only the faithful can read that mess of a book and call it divine.
@Thromnabular well the various books of the bible ARE inconsistent with each other. Only the faithful can read that mess of a book and call it divine.
@Thromnabular well the various books of the bible ARE inconsistent with each other. Only the faithful can read that mess of a book and call it divine.
@Thromnabular well the various books of the bible ARE inconsistent with each other. Only the faithful can read that mess of a book and call it divine.
Unfortunately, a lot of atheists, look to Mormonism and Catholicism, to provide examples of contradiction with the Bible and examples as to why Christianity is wrong. I, as a Protestant Christian who so far doesn't want to commit to any particular denomination, also look at Mormonism and Catholicism as being contradictory to the Bible as well as logic. One thing that I really wish atheism would stop doing, is accepting these two cults as Christianity because they're not.
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, THINK).
@MystryBox Also, the Catholics didn't assemble the Bible the Council of Nicea did. But that's besides the point even if Catholics assembled the book (which they didn't) they only assembled it. They didn't write it, and therefore are not an authority over it. The Bible is or at least is supposed to be the authority over Christianity. So, when I say that Catholics contradict the Bible I'm talking about them adding books that were rejected for being Contradictory to the rest of the Bible.
@Thromnabular they decided what went into the book and what got rejected. They are certainly an authority over the book or else what do you think authority means? You're taking the creation and saying it has authority over those who decided what it was!
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, THINK).
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, THINK).
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, THINK).
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the organization that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
Mormonism does make a faith claim, as you say Christianity does. However, the Mormon claim stands in direct opposition to an intelligence claim. It has been convincingly shown that the book of Mormon is an alteration of the Spaulding manuscript. The "book of Abraham," incorporated in THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE, is a pseudo-translation of an Egyptian funerary text that has nothing to do with Abraham. Those who believe the testimony of the Gospels are not asked to ignore intelligence claims.
@MorganMarvinson Mormonism is an interesting study because it's a quite new religion and quite well documented. So as you point out, it's likely mundane origins can be discovered. However every other religion is the same way, it's just a bit more difficult to unravel as they are older and less well documented. And really it doesn't take such evidence to know what is likely true--I mean the bible is full of mythical stories that obviously aren't history.
@MystryBox "I mean the bible is full of mythical stories that *obviously* aren't history." I cannot blame you for disallowing the supernatural, based on your not having experienced it. I have come to conclude that the judgment of the critic is that he judges based on that which is only reasonable to himself and on his own limited experience. In other fields I have often caught the critic superimposing his own assumptions without recognizing the limitation of his view.
@MystryBox "I mean the bible is full of mythical stories that obviously aren't history." I cannot blame you for disallowing the supernatural, based on your not having experienced it. I have come to conclude that the judgment of the critic is that he judges based on that which is only reasonable to himself and on his own limited experience. In other fields I have often caught the critic superimposing his own assumptions without recognizing the limitation of his view.
@MorganMarvinson I'm perfectly willing to allow for the supernatural... if someone can actually present it so it's something other than fiction... because right now that is all it is. If you want to hold a worldview that is based on what is apparently fiction, bully for you. But my standards are higher than that.
@MystryBox "I'm perfectly willing to allow for the supernatural." Please list here in what real ways you have allowed for the supernatural.
"on what is apparently fiction" The events described in the Bible are not written as fiction. You may superimpose the standard of your judgment upon them, based on your limited experience, but that says nothing about the nature of the literature itself and what is apparent in it.
@MorganMarvinson sorry but it's not my standards of judgement but the standards of the global expert community. I suspect that even you would reject such claims as myth and legend in the thousands of other writings that contain similar myths but are not your particular holy scriptures. So let's not play games about my supposed biased judgement. The only unreasonable biased judgements being made here are from you.
@MystryBox Please list here in what real ways you have allowed for the supernatural (or, if there are no real ways you have allowed for the supernatural, state the truth that you are not really willing to allow for the supernatural and state your reason why you are not).
The literature itself is not written as myth. Therefore, your statement that it is apparently fiction is a statement of your judgment. You could say "in my judgment it seems more like myth than the retelling of actual events."
@MorganMarvinson I spent practically my entire youth looking for the supernatural. What I found was magic is fake. Despite this I'm still open to anyone who can show the supernatural actually exists. It's not my job to go chasing after every fantasy someone else holds... if you say it exists, PROVE IT.
It's irrelevant if the literature if written as a myth or not--it is myth by any modern standard, no different than thousands of other writings (many of which are not written as myth either)
I'd like to answer your question-we believe in the message of Jesus, his claims, ideas, and the religion he created-not Paul's (that's why we are Christians and not Paulians). Yes, Paul did create the structure of the church-but the church itself was created by Jesus. Take the papacy-Paul never mentioned any pope; but Christ established Peter as the head of Christians, and the papacy was established on the Christ-given position of Peter. All church organisations were created by men like Paul-so?
@ivaflimkien sorry but really you are a Paulian. Jesus wrote nothing. What we have are a bunch of writings from people we don't even know who they were (the gospels), and people that never even met Jesus (Paul). I understand what you believe, but do YOU even think about WHY you believe it? I mean seriously, why? Did you wake up one day and think to yourself, "gee, I think I'll believe the next guy who claims he speaks to god for me and dedicate my life to his cause."
@MystryBox I've been baptised Catholic since birth but was a secular, mild Catholic until I grew up and read for myself the message Jesus gave us (every good aspect of life from the triumph of the poor to the abolition of violence). We do know who the evangelists are, and two of them were apostles (with John actually being the greatest friend of Jesus) and they lived with him for 3 years.
There is historical proof that Jesus existed, and even the burial sites of some apostles are known today..
@ivaflimkien you're stating beliefs not facts. The fact is there isn't even any documentation of Jesus from anyone at the time he supposedly lived, let alone "historical proof he existed." I'm not claiming he didn't exist, just that the documentation is pathetic.
@MystryBox I'm a history graduate; and if we were to simply accept just those episodes where we have unquestionable, undeniable proof, then we would have no history. Even your atheism is not stating fact, because you have no facts to show me that God does not exist. A collection of writings over two millenia corresponding to historical episodes seems to me about as authentic as it can possibly get from that era. What did you expect, exactly? That God would write an email to you?
@ivaflimkien as a history major you should be well aware that when historical record mentions supernatural things (a common thing) those are recognized as myth and legend. It's only with the bible that you want to treat such things as history rather than myth and legend. So as a history student how can you argue for one text to be treated differently than all the others?
And yes, and email from god, though not much, would be something--much better than the nothing which is what we have now.
@MystryBox "those are recognized as myth and legend" Modern historiography limits itself to human explanations just as modern science limits itself to only naturalistic ones. Yet, in the real world, history has many turns and incidents that are not easily explained in humanistic terms. One can dismiss these turns and incidents and force a purely humanistic explanation or one can allow that the hand of providence may have played a role. The difference is one's worldview.
@MystryBox "so is that convincing when you try to convince yourself to believe some of the more absurd stories in the bible?" Judging a story to be absurd, based on one's own limited experience, is an exercise in naïveté.
@MystryBox "so is that convincing when you try to convince yourself to believe some of the more absurd stories in the bible?" Judging a story to be absurd, based on one's own limited experience, is an exercise in naiveté.
@MystryBox I doubt you'd believe him even if he did write you an email-you'd just claim it's a hoax to set you up probably. No offence, but you seem the type who prefers to believe in mathematical impossibility to a possibility that a higher power than us can possibly exist
@ivaflimkien of course if I received an "email from god" I'd assume it was a hoax. Duh! What are the odds of one verses the other? Do you even know how to THINK and determine what event is more likely over another and why? Am I unreasonable for doing such evaluation rather than being a gullible idiot? Seriously, you sit there and act like I should believe an email that claimed to be from god? Even you wouldn't be that stupid and from your posts so far that's saying something.
@MystryBox my point (and anyone over ten years old would have realised it) was that you wouldn't believe in God even if he showed you himself. It's useless to try and reason with people like you, you just refuse to believe in anything which goes against your fanatic hatred of religion. Nuff said -_-
@ivaflimkien your point is wrong. No sane person would deny an apparent god just as no sane person denies the sun. You only say such silly things because it's part of your "web of excuses" to explain a reality where no gods are apparent.
@MystryBox I don't need any excuses, and nor do I want to prove anything to you. I seek answers through Christianity, and you seek it through science and philosophers like Voltaire. I prefer the ideas of Christ and Christian morality to science (which has no morals by definition) or people like Voltaire or d'Holbach, who only managed to criticise everything and never proposed a single alternative or answer.
@ivaflimkien whatever. You believe what you want to believe. I have standards for deciding what I believe, and it has nothing to do with what I want to be true.
@MystryBox "No gods are apparent" An invisible God cannot be "apparent" in the same way that the sun is apparent. He is apparent in other ways unless you use tricks of the mind to dismiss them. The mind is, after all, an illusionary organ. It can conceive of things that have never existed and can dismiss things that are apparent to unprejudiced minds. In a technological world, it can create a "living space" that is unsustainable without artificial intervention.
@MorganMarvinson if god(s) existed that wanted us to know they existed it's reasonable to assume they would provide some objective way to know they exist. There is no objective proof of any gods as shown by the ubiquitous honest debate on the subject. So either no gods exist, or no gods that care if we know they are there exist.
@MrRtis Jesus saves them from what? From the torture chamber he runs in his basement? No thanks, I'll pass on your wacky demon god who you think needs to "save" people from how he created them in the first place.
About the Nature thing. Now I may be a Christian but I LOVE science and you're right nature has always always existed even if there is nothing there because it is a part of something so the bigbang just added to nature.
And dude really "Monkey Vaginas" Evolution took millions of years starting from
Australiopithicus to Homo Habilias to Homo Erectus to Cro-Magnun then to Homo Sapien then to Homo homo sapien it's not like a Human popped out of a monkey vagina
I agree with you I mean why except there own religious belifes and down others. People really don't know what is right they only asume what is right. The real reason I down religion is because people are having war over bullshit. People lets make love not war and share the worlds resources.Religion is fake just a way to control your mind.
@ebrown369 If some people do not accept them we will have to teach how to love like Jesus would have or we will simply show them this love. You see where I am from we are tought equality and kindness at a very young age and we are tought the most important one... Tolerance.
@ebrowne369 Those are the people who belong to a religion, really. I see many muslims (I was born and raised as a muslim, now atheist) hating jews and christians (my family didn't hate anybody, luckily) and christians hating jews and muslims, and jews hating, well I don't know. I accept everybody, but shouldn't I get accepted too? I see people saying God is good and I'm for him but they can't even keep up with the 10 commandments? And the majority is like that.
@Undergroundhiphoop i agree. if people stopped blindly following a religion and assuming they have spiritual superiority, things would be so much better. no israel vs. palestine, no christians bombing abortion clinics, no rights being banned because of religious beliefs, etc.
Hey I'm a christian and this may sound wierd but, Don't listen these narrow minded people Believe what you want to believe it's your choice not mine not thiers its your choice so go with it So just ignore these people saying
"Oh ur goin to hell!"
but in reality god loves his children even if they are an athiest thats why I dont bash or dis ur videos because you have the god givin right to believe what u want so go with it if it makes you happy.
@iTzMyFancySauce thanks for the comment. If more theists had your tolerant attitude the world would be a better place and non-believers probably wouldn't even bother to make videos.
The burst in atheist books and videos (including mine) came as a result of 9/11--about as intolerant an action from theists as has been seen in America.
@MystryBox "The burst in atheist books and videos (including mine) came as a result of 9/11" I never thought about it this way. If your appraisal is true then the twin tower terrorists stimulated the spread of atheism. Hmm. Is that what they wanted?
@iTzMyFancySauce so do you call people you love "fools" and condemn them to eternal damnation, torture, and suffering? that sounds like love to me. but, I'm glad you are as open minded as you are and believe in freedom of religion, for that I thank you.
Absolutely. This is one of the questions I often ask christians and have yet to hear anyone actually answer. I think one of the reasons that religious people rarely accept the sort of argument you are putting forward is that it involves them being critical of themselves. It basically involves people taking the thing they've based their life around and admitting to themselves that it's nonsense, that is a very difficult thing for people to do, it's much easier to dismiss arguments and feel safe.
We do not have the original gospel manuscripts, so we do not know how they were signed. What we do have is reputable historians attributing the works to M,M, L, and J.
And the difference with Paul was severalfold. Firstly, Peter and Barnabas both verified his writings as fully true. Secondly, the students of Peter, after his death, refered to Paul as a great man who spoke truth. Taken together, we can see the difference to John Smith
@thegreatapologist what we have is reputable historians attributing that the gospels copy from Mark and another source document Q. There is clear internal fraud as well. They are anything but eye witness accounts and very unlikely to be true.
As for Paul, nobody can verify his vision claims as true. Who cares if some people believed him. As reasonable adults we can doubt his unlikely claims the same as we doubt Joesph Smith's.
@MystryBox Plutarch never signed his documents. All we have are letters saying he wrote them. Does that mean we doubt that his documents were written by Plutarch? No, historians except the authorship of those documents. The letters of antiquity of the time claim that that M,M, L, and J penned them. For example, Papias said that John wrote John, and he was told by elder John, someone who knew John directly.
The letters and writings of the time are unanimous of the issue of authorship.
@thegreatapologist nobody is asking us to believe supernatural claims in Plutarch documents. The fact is nobody knows who wrote the gospels. Internally there is evidence they were copied from common sources, include false information, describe events not witnessed by the supposed authors and most of all contain legendary stories that are unlikely to be true and cannot be believed without better evidence than anonymous writings.
@MystryBox That's the key term. Supernatural. The fact of the matter is, if God exists, then supernatural things are easily explained as facts outside of our understanding. Now, If I was using the Bible as evidence for the existence of God, then that would end up as a circular argument, but since the existence of a divine creator is a separate issue to Biblical canocity, I will not discus it here.
@MystryBox No, my point was rather that you are assuming a point by saying that the supernatural is impossible. Your point is based on the assumption that God does not exist, a point which you have not validated or discussed.
@thegreatapologist this is going to be very difficult if you don't actually read my posts (or don't understand them). I already explained a few posts back how you are incorrect in assuming that I a priori dismiss supernatural claims as impossible. Rather than repeat myself why don't you read the post that goes "I don't reject supernatural claims a priori as impossible, I reject them (as is reasonable and expected in rational discussion) as highly unlikely..."
Well, anyway, the refutation still stands. For what reason would it be unlikely? If there is a perfect, sovereign God, then it would be perfectly likely, therefore the basis of claiming that miracles are unlikely is reliant on the fact that God is either non-existent or is unlikely to exist. He who asserts must prove, so if you make the assertion of the unlikeness of miracles, you have to show some reason for it. Such as the nonexistence of a god.
@thegreatapologist You apparently missed my other comment where I refuted your statement that began "If God exists then..." IF I was the queen of England then I could knight you. If I could fly then I wouldn't need a car. How about if you don't presume your conclusion as part of your argument? Seriously what can I say to that except are you for real? I'm not the one claiming hidden gods exist--you are. The burden is on you to show your position correct (not merely presuming it true)
@MystryBox My point is that if YOU are going to make that statement, YOU are going to have to support it. If you are saying that miracles are unlikely, it is not my responsibility to prove all your assumptions wrong if you don't have any support for them at all. With unsupported assumptions, you might as well be saying that England doesn't exist and instead of providing proof, instead asking others to prove that it exists. That simply doesn't make any sense.
@thegreatapologist the claim that the supernatural exists is the positive claim. No one has ever demonstrated anything supernatural. It's not my job to disprove every claim people might imagine. Basically what you're doing is saying "I can fly, prove I can't." Sorry but if you think you can fly, simply fly and show us to prove your claim. Same with claiming gods exist or the supernatural exists. If you're going to make the claim you need to support it if you're going to be taken seriously.
@thegreatapologist If your claim to being a "greatapologist" is to simply shift the burden of proof onto the other guy and ask him to disprove your positive claims, you need to take a course on logic and/or argument.
@MystryBox You do not seem to understand anything that I am saying. I am saying that you are claiming that the events of the Bible are unlikely. I am stating that your argument needs support, because the Bible's events are unlikely only under a certain set of conditions that you have made no effort to establish. I am not shifting the burden of proof. It exists on your behalf. If you are to challenge any sort of document, you must support that challenge.
@thegreatapologist as your religion has destroyed your common sense, let me provide you some. The claims in the bible (e.g. the dead rising, the sun standing still, etc.) are contrary to physical facts, settled scientific principles, and the laws of nature. Such writings in history are very common and are accepted as legend. If someone wanted to claim such writings were history and not legend, they have the burden of showing the unlikely case that laws of nature were in fact violated.
@MystryBox Ah, and we move to ad hominem. An excellent way to prove your point.
Okay, the Bible exists. The events portrayed in the Bible work of of the assumption that God exists. When you are attacking the Bible, you have to show how the events are not plausible. To do this, you have to attack the assumption that God exists. Since YOU are on the offensive, YOU have to support your offensive argument. It is not my job to counter an assumption that you make if you do not back it up.
@thegreatapologist sorry but if your logic actually held then it would be everyone's job to disprove elves, fairies, and every other fanciful notion anyone invented before it was reasonable to doubt it (and in most cases it's not even possible to disprove such claims). That's why the burden of proof exists as it does. Those that claim gods, fairies, elves, etc. exist have the burden of proof to support their claim. Google burden of proof and read it before you post again or I'm blocking you
@thegreatapologist beyond your burden of proof errors I've already explained why the bible claims are not plausible. Are you suggesting the sun stopping in the sky is somehow plausible or more likely that the simpler explanation that it's a legend? Do you understand that the primitives that wrote the bible didn't even know basic facts such as the sun doesn't orbit the earth? It's shocking that I'm even having this discussion. At this point there is nothing left but ad homs!
@MystryBox Burden of Proof Errors? When I challenge an atheist with an argument, I would never assume that God exists as part of my argument, so why should you assume that God does not exist as part of your argument?
And with the sun, it was written in the style and within the understanding of the time. When you look east at five in the morning, you don't say "My, what a beautiful planetary rotation". so even though the sun didn't literally stop, it was said that it "stopped".
@thegreatapologist after some thought, let me try a different tack that might expose the errors you're making. My position isn't that your god does't exist or that the bible isn't true. My position is that the simplest and most likely explanation is the bible is legendary. The reason why it's more likely legendary is we have thousands of examples of ancient writings making supernatural claims and no examples of confirmed supernatural occurrence. That is my now supported position. Move on.
@MystryBox Okay, now you have finally identified and supported your position, so we can have an intelligent debate.
Now, it is a natural part of human nature to explain nature with some sort of supernatural force. The question is, why? Why explain the unexplained with some created deity? I mean, its not like some guy comes along and says "We have the sun because some god with a bird head makes it so". The reason is that the world is supernatural. Without a creator, it is obscenely unlikely.
@thegreatapologist sorry, I don't buy that. Just because humans can imagine things doesn't mean they must exist. A more likely explanation is gods in particular are an anthropomorphism of nature. Man sees that he has parents and creates things and projects his experience onto nature creating a "parent" figure in the sky to have created him and explain all that he doesn't understand. Man creates god in his image and his newly made god returns the favor.
@MystryBox The difference between anthropomorphism and imaginings is they are never wholeheartedly believed by huge amounts of people. Why would you believe that a book is nonfiction if it has magic/elves/dragons/in fiction section? I doubt that every single culture of the world would carve a deity out of stone and believe it to be real if no deity existed.
@thegreatapologist my view is that because humans tend to create gods, demons, dragons, and other mythological beings (99.99% we can all agree are merely legends) it just shows that most likely 100% of man's imaginings are just that: imaginings. I mean you want to think thousands of gods and other legends are just legends, but the one view of god you happen to have been raised to believe in is the one that is actually true? Doesn't that strain even your credulity?
@MystryBox No, it doesn't. The way you determine if an idea is a myth or a legend is by evaluating it and determining its validity individually, not compared to other ideas.
@MystryBox No, it doesn't. The way you determine if an idea is a myth or a legend is by evaluating it and determining its validity individually, not compared to other ideas. At least, if you are practicing good science.
@thegreatapologist huh? You're just making things up now. Of course we evaluate things based on our experience and knowledge. We have 1000 gods that man has created... you want to ignore than fact when someone makes a claim about another god? Good grief.
@MystryBox Stating the a "new god" must be wrong because other gods have been created is an appeal to precedent and is therefore inductive proof. I'll take the objective route when determining the nature of the universe.
@thegreatapologist a new claim of a god isn't false because of past claims, but it is more suspect. You just love taking things to extremes so you can invalidate a strawman. Knock it off. Nobody is fooled except perhaps yourself.
@MystryBox It may seem so because of the constraints of youtube comments :P. What I'm saying is that while it may be more suspect, this is not a true reason to Reject a new idea, but rather a reason to doubt it. Doubt, to a degree, is good, as is helps ensure that bad ideas don't come to fruition. However, when it comes to using the precedent to actually reject a new idea, then you are getting into bad territory. While myths may give reason for doubt, they do not give reason for rejection.
@thegreatapologist the reason for rejection is the utter lack of decent evidence to support the claim being made. That there are other god claims also with no evidence that we accept as myth is just icing on the cake.
@MystryBox Okay, I would agree perfectly with that statement. You see, Icing by itself is useless. People don't just eat icing. That's why if I were to be an atheist, I would aim at the cake and not the icing.
I'm not denying that that "cake" exists, simply saying that arguing for the "icing" as a reason to be an atheist isn't a good idea. The "cake" is a separate debate from the one in this video.
@thegreatapologist an atheist isn't a something, he is a not something, specifically not a theist. So it's a little weird talking about atheism because you're not talking about something, you're talking about the lack of something. People aren't theists for various reasons but generally because theists fail to make their case. There really is no positive case for atheists... you can't disprove all gods. Atheism is simply the state you're left in when theism has failed to make its case.
@MystryBox Well, yeah. I was saying that if I were an atheist, I would be an atheist not because there are 1000s of religions, but because, as you have said, they have failed to make their case.
@thegreatapologist but it's not a small point that 1000 religions have failed to make their case... especially while most claim they have made their case yet have fail in similar ways. I basically spend all day pointing out to theists that the argument they are using on me they themselves don't believe when it is made from the viewpoint of a different religion. So it is a significant point.
@MystryBox The second part of talking about the arguments made by multiple religions has been addressed by the video I provided.
On a basis of reasons to reject a religion, hypocrisy in arguments does not mean that all religions are false, just that they need to step back and analyze the argument for its true validity. If it is truly valid in equal amounts against both religions, then I would step back farther and analyze the overall position of the religions, instead of specifics.
@MystryBox For example, many of the events of Greek myths are perfectly rational is the Greek gods existed. To counter that religion on the basis of unrealism, you would have to attack their gods' existence, otherwise these events are plausible. Without the existence of the gods, however, they are immediately shown to be implausible. If I were attacking greek mythos, if I said "Its unreasonable that helen went along with paris" a greek would simply say "the gods did it."
@thegreatapologist sorry that your ignorant of the basics of burden of proof. I suggest you research it before I simply abandon any hope of intelligent discussion with you.
@MystryBox Burden of Proof means "He who Asserts Must Prove". The real question is who is asserting, you or me?
Now, we have the Bible. You callenged the Bible with a claim. That is an assertion, true or false. That assertion was backed by another assertion, which was backed by nothing. I pointed that out, and all you have done is gotten mad, denied it, insulted me, and mocked me. If this is how you argue, then we are done.
@thegreatapologist by the way that miracles are unlikely is an observed fact. You want me to prove what is an observed fact because you cannot support your case and would rather put the burden on me. May I suggest that we should be able to agree on simple observed facts if this is to go anywhere. I've accepted that miracles/the supernatural are not impossible, so get to showing they exist.
@MystryBox Against your points specifically addressing historical accuracy, I have never seen any sort of historical information supporting your claims. If you could provide this support for your points, I would be happy to look into your sources.
With that conditional in mind, I will try to refute them with what I have. That "Common Source" would be the gospel documents themselves. All we have are copies. The false information needs to be specified before it can be supported. (word limit :P)
@MystryBox Continued-Without specifications of what events you are referring to, this point can not be quantified or fully understood, so it so not stand until specifications of what supposed fabricated events are provided. They contain "legendary stories" because you don't believe in them in the first place. With an initial bias against the idea of a higher power acting outside of our reasoning, it is easy to assume that it is "legendary". This point lies outside the realm of discussion.
@thegreatapologist I don't reject supernatural claims a priori as impossible, I reject them (as it reasonable and expected in rational discussion) as highly unlikely. If you want to try to support some highly unlikely and apparently mythical appearing claims I'm willing to be convinced with proper evidence, but until then I've no interest in "magic" or other childish nonsense presented with no support. I'll show you the same respect and not expect you to presume unlikely unsupported claims.
@thegreatapologist also note that I explained how *historians* dismiss supernatural claims, and your response was to an unrelated issue about how I might respond to supernatural claims. My original point about historians stands as I made it. If you're just going to cut and paste some related, but misplaced, apologetic response to everything I say just to pretend to have responded, save us both some time and don't bother.
@thegreatapologist by the way you're in no position to be comparing the gospels to Plutarch or any other historical writings because that's not how you approach them. I'm willing to treat them as historical documents but you are not. When historical writings mention supernatural occurrences those are recognized as myths. You actually want the bible to be treated differently. You want its supernatural claims accepted on their face but that is not how historical documents are treated.
Now, in regards to Paul, the greatest question is not whether he truly had visions, but whether his doctrine is concurrent with Christianity. In the case of Paul, actual disciples of Jesus said that his works were cannon. No such evidence stands in the support of John Smith, who's works pose significant contradictions to Christian teaching.
@thegreatapologist of course his doctrine is "concurrent with Christianity" -- he was among those who basically invented the religion! And again who cares if some people at the time believed him. People believe Joe Smith too and he even had signed witnesses from men who claimed to have also witnessed an angel confirming who he was. Christianity can only dream of having such evidence. So do you believe Joe and his witnesses? So why believe Paul?
"Why do you believe Paul?" - Isn't that different from the point that you were making in your original video? First vid you ask why we doubt everybody else, but not our own beliefs. You say that saying "why you believe X" is very different from saying "why you doubt ~X", but then you ask why we believe Paul.
If you were NOT asking why we believe our particular religion, only why doubt all others, why ask us why we believe Paul? Doesn't that imply that both questions are REALLY the same thing?
It's time for me to change myself. I've looked at other religions and just ignored them saying that there was just no way, whatever this is bull crap. But from now on, if something appears true, I understand that through just listening I understand more from both sides. So my point is, us lazy humans need to get up and stand. then stretch our bodies and our minds. It's time we all started listening to our family species. We all need to grow up.
You must be thinking "no, no, no" and that I am thinking "yes, yes, yes", But consider yourself neither. You can't explain everything with a science-based algorithm. you The least you can say is that you don't believe anything. Being a Christian myself, I understand that Christians are very ignorant and they don't really listen to everything else. But that's just a stereotype. The truth is, I believe what I believe. I change it.
With misunderstanding, a mere noob could prove anything wrong, and anything right. This aligns the misunderstanding across both sides of this argument of life. You see with Atheism as I explained, most Atheists try to explain why other religions aren't true, using a single model. And, other religions use a similar model to prove their religion so and away. I also understand that being an Atheist you know the Bible all around. But it's the want that draws out needs.
I think that we shouldn't just ignore other religions, my religion clearly supports listening. So, I should listen. But with any lifestyle that we open our minds to, we have minor jumbled glimpses of other people's words. You're a very intelligent and quite peaceful frankly of a man, but there's difference with wisdom. And a man who calls himself wiser is lowest of wise men.
Atheism IS believing that you don't believe anything. Of course your point is focused on reasons you don't believe anything else. The way I see it is that if you think that way, all religions are just our imagination, including atheism. See, there's always misunderstandings. You can't explain fully how something happened in the past because you weren't there. One thing to say is that I support the fact that anyone would believe what appears to them as legitimacy, with somewhat valid explanation.
@proudfemale I never said that. A-theism: non-theism/against theism/without theism. Not believing anything is agnosticism. Even then, that wasn't even my main focus.
@proudfemale There is a difference in the words usuage. In one case it's believing something exists, in another case it's supporting things that we know exist, like human rights, loyalty, etc.
Deist use logic and support science. It is through logic to truely find the truth. I give the benefit of doubt to think if God doesn't exists. I cannot conclude that. Nature is the evidence God's existence.
Oh ok those what you gave examples have a cause and effect. Humans break down all these natural events in their most simple form so we can understand them better. How come some things scientist and other experts can't explain. For example in psychology can't figure out why we dream and no real use for it but we need sleep if not our body will shut down over time. Why do we need a huge amount education to study nature. Deist dont come up with ignorant reasoning that God controls the world.
Plants have the same type of "organs" (I dont remember their internal). Nature is a whole system that is made up many systems (e.g. Water Cycle). Please inform me of one natural and unintelligent discovery. I can't think of any. Look at our universe how other universals are same as ours. Its amazing how our universe is align in a certain way and the planets revolove around the sun. Sun is the primary source of energy that is giving this earth life. Without the sun we are all dead.
@Revolorio8 everything that you mention is due to natural, unintelligent processes. All those things used to be explained by appealing to gods or spirits or demons or whatever. But everything we uncover is instead natural and unintelligent explanations due to the properties of nature.
@BassP86 if the processes were initiated it's quite reasonable to assume something natural and unintelligent initiated it. We observe a vast universe with uncountable processes initiated yet they are all initiated by a natural and unintelligent cause (with the except of things we start ourselves).
@BassP86 sure it's a reasonable assumption. But it's an assumption. There is no evidence to bare out some super intelligent being responsible for everything. That view is exactly what you state... an extension of our view of our human reality (e.g. our having parents) onto nature. When you actually examine to discover what is likely true no intelligence has ever been found, only unintelligent natural processes.
@MystryBox hey just one question. I dont believe any much my self but if you say everything is due to the properties of nature then.... what caused nature??? Then iv heard ohhh its because of the big bang... the chances are not even real. So im sry to say im not stupid enough to believe i involved from a fucking monkey. I feel like there is a purpose for people. If there isn't then whats the point of us even being here.
@stevosg258 nature existed in some form even before the big bang. Nature has always existed. And sorry if you don't want to think you evolved. Sometimes truth isn't what we might want.
@MystryBox Okay if you think nature has always been here then when was the first sign of man?? There has always been some connection to the past through people and you said that nature has always been here then there would a forever connection with the past and that is not true. And by the way idk if you dont know but humans come from vaginas not monkeys.
@stevosg258 do you really expect me to take you seriously and spend time on you when you say idiotic things like "idk if you dont know but humans come from vaginas not monkeys"?
@balkan2k What?! If you have something to say just say it. Dont give me this name calling thing you have going. Do you disagree what i believe with me then give me a strong logical argument. Please no logical fallacies. I will ignore you if you just do that and see you as an ignorant.
@Revolorio8 WTF? You were asking for natural unintelligent designs! The vagus nerve and the mammalian eye are both cases of unintelligent design, *especially* the vagus nerve. What names did I call you??? Please do tell!
@balkan2k I will Thank you. Cells that replicate uncontrollably are consider a cancer/tumor. The cells act intelligently and receive nutrients (e.g. water, lipids, proteins). The cell must stop replicating eventually if not it will crush vital organs or rip muscles.
Give me an example something discovered that is both natural and unintelligent. The reasoning i believe that nature is created by one God is when you observe the work one person are done differently; for example, you can notice the quality of product of one company than another. I'm a huge electronic buyer person when i look for electronics Sony is the brand I look for. Look at how our internal body (human) and internal of any animal have the same organs not exact same size.
@Revolorio8 give you an example of something we used to think was caused by gods (or demons) but instead we found was due to natural and unintelligent properties of nature? Um how about lightning, disease, earthquakes, mental illness, etc., etc. How about EVERYTHING we've ever discovered about our world?
Like
Sub
Fav
psycotria 2 months ago
Why is there a can of spam on the book shelf ?
mikeyloc1000 4 months ago
But you see... a lot of people who were Christian or had a basic understanding of the Bible sees it as a crock because it appears to contradict itself. And with all the opposing denominations of Christianity and denominations of denominations all giving different interpretations of the same book it's really hard to blame them. But they don't understand the main point of Christianity. They just see it as a bunch of self-righteous people selfishly wanting to make it to heaven.
Thromnabular 4 months ago
Comment removed
Thromnabular 4 months ago
core, moral values and overarching themes. Without these, the Bible is useless. Things like what, generally, a Christian should be living his life doing, and things that prevent us from turning away from God. Other than that the Bible isn't essential to being a Christian. And in case anyone's wondering why I'm going through these videos and posting long comments, it's because I find these arguments very intelligent and worth my time to contradict.
Thromnabular 4 months ago
@Thromnabular the bible is a horrible source of moral values. I mean look at what it's full of... a god that punishes and entire world for the sin of two people.... who slaughters and entire world of life but what is on a boat... who demands animal and later human sacrifice to appease his own hatred of what he has created. You think that's a standard to try to live by? Are you insane??
MystryBox 4 months ago
It all depends on what standard you base moral values on. We obviously all have a universal moral standard, not to kill, not to steal, not harm other humans. All of this is rubbish of course if you believe in naturalism because there is no survival reason for morality (and therefore no way to account how morality came about through evolution). But back to the point, by what standard would you judge a god or God, assuming He was real and gave you your morality?
Thromnabular 4 months ago
@Thromnabular sure there is a survival reason for morality. I have a video on this. See my video "Source of Morality".
And I have to judge anything by my own human views. Genocide is wrong. A god might do it and claim a higher authority/morality, but to ME it is still evil and wrong. I would not worship a demon like your god who commits genocide. You are of course free to worship evil demons as you wish, but I think you are wrong.
MystryBox 4 months ago
Now of course that answer then begs the question, "If we can't believe some of the Bible then how can we believe ANY of the Bible?" This question was asked to me by one of my friends who has now decided to completely forgo the Bible and try to seek God without it. Admittedly, I see the logic in this. But we have to look at why God supposedly gave us the Bible in the first place, it was meant to help us, not define us. Therefore when reading the Bible the only thing that we must assume is true is
Thromnabular 4 months ago
As to your question, How do you objectively choose which men to believe, if they don't have evidence? My answer is collaboration. When looking at books of the Bible, I look to see if they contradict with each other. If a contradiction occurs than it wasn't meant to be in the Bible. There is a verse that specifically mentions altering the Bible as unforgivable, I would have to assume that this was a possibility or else it wouldn't be mentioned.
Thromnabular 4 months ago
@Thromnabular well the various books of the bible ARE inconsistent with each other. Only the faithful can read that mess of a book and call it divine.
MystryBox 4 months ago
@MystryBox Perhaps you could point out those inconsistencies.
Thromnabular 4 months ago
@Thromnabular well the various books of the bible ARE inconsistent with each other. Only the faithful can read that mess of a book and call it divine.
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular well the various books of the bible ARE inconsistent with each other. Only the faithful can read that mess of a book and call it divine.
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular well the various books of the bible ARE inconsistent with each other. Only the faithful can read that mess of a book and call it divine.
MystryBox 4 months ago
Unfortunately, a lot of atheists, look to Mormonism and Catholicism, to provide examples of contradiction with the Bible and examples as to why Christianity is wrong. I, as a Protestant Christian who so far doesn't want to commit to any particular denomination, also look at Mormonism and Catholicism as being contradictory to the Bible as well as logic. One thing that I really wish atheism would stop doing, is accepting these two cults as Christianity because they're not.
Thromnabular 4 months ago
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, THINK).
MystryBox 4 months ago
@MystryBox Also, the Catholics didn't assemble the Bible the Council of Nicea did. But that's besides the point even if Catholics assembled the book (which they didn't) they only assembled it. They didn't write it, and therefore are not an authority over it. The Bible is or at least is supposed to be the authority over Christianity. So, when I say that Catholics contradict the Bible I'm talking about them adding books that were rejected for being Contradictory to the rest of the Bible.
Thromnabular 4 months ago
@Thromnabular they decided what went into the book and what got rejected. They are certainly an authority over the book or else what do you think authority means? You're taking the creation and saying it has authority over those who decided what it was!
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, THINK).
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, THINK).
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, THINK).
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the religion that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
MystryBox 4 months ago
@Thromnabular who cares what is contrary to the bible? It's just a book (and it's self inconsistent anyway). The early Catholics assembled the book, deciding what went in it and what didn't. So now you want to put the book ahead of the organization that made the book? What sort of logic is that? (not that I'm Catholic, but seriously, think).
MystryBox 4 months ago
Mormonism does make a faith claim, as you say Christianity does. However, the Mormon claim stands in direct opposition to an intelligence claim. It has been convincingly shown that the book of Mormon is an alteration of the Spaulding manuscript. The "book of Abraham," incorporated in THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE, is a pseudo-translation of an Egyptian funerary text that has nothing to do with Abraham. Those who believe the testimony of the Gospels are not asked to ignore intelligence claims.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Mormonism is an interesting study because it's a quite new religion and quite well documented. So as you point out, it's likely mundane origins can be discovered. However every other religion is the same way, it's just a bit more difficult to unravel as they are older and less well documented. And really it doesn't take such evidence to know what is likely true--I mean the bible is full of mythical stories that obviously aren't history.
MystryBox 4 months ago
@MystryBox "I mean the bible is full of mythical stories that *obviously* aren't history." I cannot blame you for disallowing the supernatural, based on your not having experienced it. I have come to conclude that the judgment of the critic is that he judges based on that which is only reasonable to himself and on his own limited experience. In other fields I have often caught the critic superimposing his own assumptions without recognizing the limitation of his view.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MystryBox "I mean the bible is full of mythical stories that obviously aren't history." I cannot blame you for disallowing the supernatural, based on your not having experienced it. I have come to conclude that the judgment of the critic is that he judges based on that which is only reasonable to himself and on his own limited experience. In other fields I have often caught the critic superimposing his own assumptions without recognizing the limitation of his view.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson I'm perfectly willing to allow for the supernatural... if someone can actually present it so it's something other than fiction... because right now that is all it is. If you want to hold a worldview that is based on what is apparently fiction, bully for you. But my standards are higher than that.
MystryBox 4 months ago
@MystryBox "I'm perfectly willing to allow for the supernatural." Please list here in what real ways you have allowed for the supernatural.
"on what is apparently fiction" The events described in the Bible are not written as fiction. You may superimpose the standard of your judgment upon them, based on your limited experience, but that says nothing about the nature of the literature itself and what is apparent in it.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson sorry but it's not my standards of judgement but the standards of the global expert community. I suspect that even you would reject such claims as myth and legend in the thousands of other writings that contain similar myths but are not your particular holy scriptures. So let's not play games about my supposed biased judgement. The only unreasonable biased judgements being made here are from you.
MystryBox 4 months ago
@MystryBox Please list here in what real ways you have allowed for the supernatural (or, if there are no real ways you have allowed for the supernatural, state the truth that you are not really willing to allow for the supernatural and state your reason why you are not).
The literature itself is not written as myth. Therefore, your statement that it is apparently fiction is a statement of your judgment. You could say "in my judgment it seems more like myth than the retelling of actual events."
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson I spent practically my entire youth looking for the supernatural. What I found was magic is fake. Despite this I'm still open to anyone who can show the supernatural actually exists. It's not my job to go chasing after every fantasy someone else holds... if you say it exists, PROVE IT.
It's irrelevant if the literature if written as a myth or not--it is myth by any modern standard, no different than thousands of other writings (many of which are not written as myth either)
MystryBox 4 months ago
I'd like to answer your question-we believe in the message of Jesus, his claims, ideas, and the religion he created-not Paul's (that's why we are Christians and not Paulians). Yes, Paul did create the structure of the church-but the church itself was created by Jesus. Take the papacy-Paul never mentioned any pope; but Christ established Peter as the head of Christians, and the papacy was established on the Christ-given position of Peter. All church organisations were created by men like Paul-so?
ivaflimkien 7 months ago
@ivaflimkien sorry but really you are a Paulian. Jesus wrote nothing. What we have are a bunch of writings from people we don't even know who they were (the gospels), and people that never even met Jesus (Paul). I understand what you believe, but do YOU even think about WHY you believe it? I mean seriously, why? Did you wake up one day and think to yourself, "gee, I think I'll believe the next guy who claims he speaks to god for me and dedicate my life to his cause."
MystryBox 6 months ago
@MystryBox I've been baptised Catholic since birth but was a secular, mild Catholic until I grew up and read for myself the message Jesus gave us (every good aspect of life from the triumph of the poor to the abolition of violence). We do know who the evangelists are, and two of them were apostles (with John actually being the greatest friend of Jesus) and they lived with him for 3 years.
There is historical proof that Jesus existed, and even the burial sites of some apostles are known today..
ivaflimkien 6 months ago
@ivaflimkien you're stating beliefs not facts. The fact is there isn't even any documentation of Jesus from anyone at the time he supposedly lived, let alone "historical proof he existed." I'm not claiming he didn't exist, just that the documentation is pathetic.
MystryBox 6 months ago
@MystryBox I'm a history graduate; and if we were to simply accept just those episodes where we have unquestionable, undeniable proof, then we would have no history. Even your atheism is not stating fact, because you have no facts to show me that God does not exist. A collection of writings over two millenia corresponding to historical episodes seems to me about as authentic as it can possibly get from that era. What did you expect, exactly? That God would write an email to you?
ivaflimkien 6 months ago
@ivaflimkien as a history major you should be well aware that when historical record mentions supernatural things (a common thing) those are recognized as myth and legend. It's only with the bible that you want to treat such things as history rather than myth and legend. So as a history student how can you argue for one text to be treated differently than all the others?
And yes, and email from god, though not much, would be something--much better than the nothing which is what we have now.
MystryBox 6 months ago
@MystryBox "those are recognized as myth and legend" Modern historiography limits itself to human explanations just as modern science limits itself to only naturalistic ones. Yet, in the real world, history has many turns and incidents that are not easily explained in humanistic terms. One can dismiss these turns and incidents and force a purely humanistic explanation or one can allow that the hand of providence may have played a role. The difference is one's worldview.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson so is that convincing when you try to convince yourself to believe some of the more absurd stories in the bible?
MystryBox 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MystryBox "so is that convincing when you try to convince yourself to believe some of the more absurd stories in the bible?" Judging a story to be absurd, based on one's own limited experience, is an exercise in naïveté.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MystryBox "so is that convincing when you try to convince yourself to believe some of the more absurd stories in the bible?" Judging a story to be absurd, based on one's own limited experience, is an exercise in naiveté.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MystryBox I doubt you'd believe him even if he did write you an email-you'd just claim it's a hoax to set you up probably. No offence, but you seem the type who prefers to believe in mathematical impossibility to a possibility that a higher power than us can possibly exist
ivaflimkien 6 months ago
@ivaflimkien of course if I received an "email from god" I'd assume it was a hoax. Duh! What are the odds of one verses the other? Do you even know how to THINK and determine what event is more likely over another and why? Am I unreasonable for doing such evaluation rather than being a gullible idiot? Seriously, you sit there and act like I should believe an email that claimed to be from god? Even you wouldn't be that stupid and from your posts so far that's saying something.
MystryBox 6 months ago
@MystryBox my point (and anyone over ten years old would have realised it) was that you wouldn't believe in God even if he showed you himself. It's useless to try and reason with people like you, you just refuse to believe in anything which goes against your fanatic hatred of religion. Nuff said -_-
ivaflimkien 6 months ago
@ivaflimkien your point is wrong. No sane person would deny an apparent god just as no sane person denies the sun. You only say such silly things because it's part of your "web of excuses" to explain a reality where no gods are apparent.
MystryBox 6 months ago
@MystryBox I don't need any excuses, and nor do I want to prove anything to you. I seek answers through Christianity, and you seek it through science and philosophers like Voltaire. I prefer the ideas of Christ and Christian morality to science (which has no morals by definition) or people like Voltaire or d'Holbach, who only managed to criticise everything and never proposed a single alternative or answer.
ivaflimkien 6 months ago
@ivaflimkien whatever. You believe what you want to believe. I have standards for deciding what I believe, and it has nothing to do with what I want to be true.
MystryBox 6 months ago
@MystryBox "No gods are apparent" An invisible God cannot be "apparent" in the same way that the sun is apparent. He is apparent in other ways unless you use tricks of the mind to dismiss them. The mind is, after all, an illusionary organ. It can conceive of things that have never existed and can dismiss things that are apparent to unprejudiced minds. In a technological world, it can create a "living space" that is unsustainable without artificial intervention.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson if god(s) existed that wanted us to know they existed it's reasonable to assume they would provide some objective way to know they exist. There is no objective proof of any gods as shown by the ubiquitous honest debate on the subject. So either no gods exist, or no gods that care if we know they are there exist.
MystryBox 4 months ago
Jesus saves sinners. R U saved?
MrRtis 7 months ago
@MrRtis Jesus saves them from what? From the torture chamber he runs in his basement? No thanks, I'll pass on your wacky demon god who you think needs to "save" people from how he created them in the first place.
MystryBox 7 months ago
About the Nature thing. Now I may be a Christian but I LOVE science and you're right nature has always always existed even if there is nothing there because it is a part of something so the bigbang just added to nature.
And dude really "Monkey Vaginas" Evolution took millions of years starting from
Australiopithicus to Homo Habilias to Homo Erectus to Cro-Magnun then to Homo Sapien then to Homo homo sapien it's not like a Human popped out of a monkey vagina
Dumbass...
iTzMyFancySauce 7 months ago
I agree with you I mean why except there own religious belifes and down others. People really don't know what is right they only asume what is right. The real reason I down religion is because people are having war over bullshit. People lets make love not war and share the worlds resources.Religion is fake just a way to control your mind.
comedy101ful 7 months ago
Lolz naahh I don't do that I just sit and accept people let me tell you something I hang out with a group of the most unlikely friends
3 christians
1 catholic
1 jewish dude
1 muslim
2 gay guys
3 athiests
and We just accept each other because its who they are and no matter what god still loves them all in my opinion so should I then.
iTzMyFancySauce 7 months ago
Lolz its ight.
I'm not obbessed with a place of suffering I honestly don't see why people are or tell people they're going there. It's senseless.
iTzMyFancySauce 8 months ago
@ebrown369 If some people do not accept them we will have to teach how to love like Jesus would have or we will simply show them this love. You see where I am from we are tought equality and kindness at a very young age and we are tought the most important one... Tolerance.
iTzMyFancySauce 8 months ago
And again with a negative comment why can't understand why people cannot accept this man for his beliefs
you accept Catholics, Jews, Muslims, And buddist but you can't accept an atheist?
Let him express his beliefs like i express my christianity
by accepting others for who they are
like Jesus
because we are all gods children and he loves him snd so should we.
iTzMyFancySauce 9 months ago
@iTzMyFancySauce some people don;t accept catholics, or jews, or muslims. what do we do about them?
ebrowne369 9 months ago
@ebrowne369 Those are the people who belong to a religion, really. I see many muslims (I was born and raised as a muslim, now atheist) hating jews and christians (my family didn't hate anybody, luckily) and christians hating jews and muslims, and jews hating, well I don't know. I accept everybody, but shouldn't I get accepted too? I see people saying God is good and I'm for him but they can't even keep up with the 10 commandments? And the majority is like that.
Undergroundhiphoop 8 months ago
@Undergroundhiphoop i agree. if people stopped blindly following a religion and assuming they have spiritual superiority, things would be so much better. no israel vs. palestine, no christians bombing abortion clinics, no rights being banned because of religious beliefs, etc.
ebrowne369 8 months ago
Your a very smart man i wish there was more people like you out there.
wachnathan 9 months ago
U are not a nice man in any form, please become educated before you jump to the conclusion that there is no God.
musefreak2010 9 months ago
And... I love science do you think you could do a video about science?
But not like Science disproving relegion?
iTzMyFancySauce 9 months ago
You are welcome so just ignore them when they leave these rude comments
iTzMyFancySauce 9 months ago
Hey I'm a christian and this may sound wierd but, Don't listen these narrow minded people Believe what you want to believe it's your choice not mine not thiers its your choice so go with it So just ignore these people saying
"Oh ur goin to hell!"
but in reality god loves his children even if they are an athiest thats why I dont bash or dis ur videos because you have the god givin right to believe what u want so go with it if it makes you happy.
iTzMyFancySauce 9 months ago
@iTzMyFancySauce thanks for the comment. If more theists had your tolerant attitude the world would be a better place and non-believers probably wouldn't even bother to make videos.
The burst in atheist books and videos (including mine) came as a result of 9/11--about as intolerant an action from theists as has been seen in America.
MystryBox 9 months ago
@MystryBox "The burst in atheist books and videos (including mine) came as a result of 9/11" I never thought about it this way. If your appraisal is true then the twin tower terrorists stimulated the spread of atheism. Hmm. Is that what they wanted?
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@iTzMyFancySauce your the first christian person who isnt obsessed with hell[: i like you haha{no creepy}
jmangta 8 months ago
@iTzMyFancySauce so do you call people you love "fools" and condemn them to eternal damnation, torture, and suffering? that sounds like love to me. but, I'm glad you are as open minded as you are and believe in freedom of religion, for that I thank you.
kpgpwi64 7 months ago
Thats a can of SPAM in the background. Just thought I would point that out.
CitizenBum80 1 year ago 6
@CitizenBum80 that makes no sense.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Lol he was just pointing out the spam can on the shelf behind you =))
bocapisces 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CitizenBum80 Spam, Spam, Spam, wonderful Spam.
marcdepuma 10 months ago
Absolutely. This is one of the questions I often ask christians and have yet to hear anyone actually answer. I think one of the reasons that religious people rarely accept the sort of argument you are putting forward is that it involves them being critical of themselves. It basically involves people taking the thing they've based their life around and admitting to themselves that it's nonsense, that is a very difficult thing for people to do, it's much easier to dismiss arguments and feel safe.
zoidberg2504 1 year ago
We do not have the original gospel manuscripts, so we do not know how they were signed. What we do have is reputable historians attributing the works to M,M, L, and J.
And the difference with Paul was severalfold. Firstly, Peter and Barnabas both verified his writings as fully true. Secondly, the students of Peter, after his death, refered to Paul as a great man who spoke truth. Taken together, we can see the difference to John Smith
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist what we have is reputable historians attributing that the gospels copy from Mark and another source document Q. There is clear internal fraud as well. They are anything but eye witness accounts and very unlikely to be true.
As for Paul, nobody can verify his vision claims as true. Who cares if some people believed him. As reasonable adults we can doubt his unlikely claims the same as we doubt Joesph Smith's.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Plutarch never signed his documents. All we have are letters saying he wrote them. Does that mean we doubt that his documents were written by Plutarch? No, historians except the authorship of those documents. The letters of antiquity of the time claim that that M,M, L, and J penned them. For example, Papias said that John wrote John, and he was told by elder John, someone who knew John directly.
The letters and writings of the time are unanimous of the issue of authorship.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist nobody is asking us to believe supernatural claims in Plutarch documents. The fact is nobody knows who wrote the gospels. Internally there is evidence they were copied from common sources, include false information, describe events not witnessed by the supposed authors and most of all contain legendary stories that are unlikely to be true and cannot be believed without better evidence than anonymous writings.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox That's the key term. Supernatural. The fact of the matter is, if God exists, then supernatural things are easily explained as facts outside of our understanding. Now, If I was using the Bible as evidence for the existence of God, then that would end up as a circular argument, but since the existence of a divine creator is a separate issue to Biblical canocity, I will not discus it here.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist "The fact of the matter is, if God exists then..."
Sure and if I was the Queen of England then I could knight you.
If you want to discuss without presuming your conclusion first that would be more useful.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox No, my point was rather that you are assuming a point by saying that the supernatural is impossible. Your point is based on the assumption that God does not exist, a point which you have not validated or discussed.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist this is going to be very difficult if you don't actually read my posts (or don't understand them). I already explained a few posts back how you are incorrect in assuming that I a priori dismiss supernatural claims as impossible. Rather than repeat myself why don't you read the post that goes "I don't reject supernatural claims a priori as impossible, I reject them (as is reasonable and expected in rational discussion) as highly unlikely..."
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Ah, pardon me.
Well, anyway, the refutation still stands. For what reason would it be unlikely? If there is a perfect, sovereign God, then it would be perfectly likely, therefore the basis of claiming that miracles are unlikely is reliant on the fact that God is either non-existent or is unlikely to exist. He who asserts must prove, so if you make the assertion of the unlikeness of miracles, you have to show some reason for it. Such as the nonexistence of a god.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist You apparently missed my other comment where I refuted your statement that began "If God exists then..." IF I was the queen of England then I could knight you. If I could fly then I wouldn't need a car. How about if you don't presume your conclusion as part of your argument? Seriously what can I say to that except are you for real? I'm not the one claiming hidden gods exist--you are. The burden is on you to show your position correct (not merely presuming it true)
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox My point is that if YOU are going to make that statement, YOU are going to have to support it. If you are saying that miracles are unlikely, it is not my responsibility to prove all your assumptions wrong if you don't have any support for them at all. With unsupported assumptions, you might as well be saying that England doesn't exist and instead of providing proof, instead asking others to prove that it exists. That simply doesn't make any sense.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist the claim that the supernatural exists is the positive claim. No one has ever demonstrated anything supernatural. It's not my job to disprove every claim people might imagine. Basically what you're doing is saying "I can fly, prove I can't." Sorry but if you think you can fly, simply fly and show us to prove your claim. Same with claiming gods exist or the supernatural exists. If you're going to make the claim you need to support it if you're going to be taken seriously.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist If your claim to being a "greatapologist" is to simply shift the burden of proof onto the other guy and ask him to disprove your positive claims, you need to take a course on logic and/or argument.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox You do not seem to understand anything that I am saying. I am saying that you are claiming that the events of the Bible are unlikely. I am stating that your argument needs support, because the Bible's events are unlikely only under a certain set of conditions that you have made no effort to establish. I am not shifting the burden of proof. It exists on your behalf. If you are to challenge any sort of document, you must support that challenge.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist as your religion has destroyed your common sense, let me provide you some. The claims in the bible (e.g. the dead rising, the sun standing still, etc.) are contrary to physical facts, settled scientific principles, and the laws of nature. Such writings in history are very common and are accepted as legend. If someone wanted to claim such writings were history and not legend, they have the burden of showing the unlikely case that laws of nature were in fact violated.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Ah, and we move to ad hominem. An excellent way to prove your point.
Okay, the Bible exists. The events portrayed in the Bible work of of the assumption that God exists. When you are attacking the Bible, you have to show how the events are not plausible. To do this, you have to attack the assumption that God exists. Since YOU are on the offensive, YOU have to support your offensive argument. It is not my job to counter an assumption that you make if you do not back it up.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist sorry but if your logic actually held then it would be everyone's job to disprove elves, fairies, and every other fanciful notion anyone invented before it was reasonable to doubt it (and in most cases it's not even possible to disprove such claims). That's why the burden of proof exists as it does. Those that claim gods, fairies, elves, etc. exist have the burden of proof to support their claim. Google burden of proof and read it before you post again or I'm blocking you
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Yeah. It is. Those have been disproved, so everybody is agreed.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist beyond your burden of proof errors I've already explained why the bible claims are not plausible. Are you suggesting the sun stopping in the sky is somehow plausible or more likely that the simpler explanation that it's a legend? Do you understand that the primitives that wrote the bible didn't even know basic facts such as the sun doesn't orbit the earth? It's shocking that I'm even having this discussion. At this point there is nothing left but ad homs!
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Burden of Proof Errors? When I challenge an atheist with an argument, I would never assume that God exists as part of my argument, so why should you assume that God does not exist as part of your argument?
And with the sun, it was written in the style and within the understanding of the time. When you look east at five in the morning, you don't say "My, what a beautiful planetary rotation". so even though the sun didn't literally stop, it was said that it "stopped".
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist after some thought, let me try a different tack that might expose the errors you're making. My position isn't that your god does't exist or that the bible isn't true. My position is that the simplest and most likely explanation is the bible is legendary. The reason why it's more likely legendary is we have thousands of examples of ancient writings making supernatural claims and no examples of confirmed supernatural occurrence. That is my now supported position. Move on.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Okay, now you have finally identified and supported your position, so we can have an intelligent debate.
Now, it is a natural part of human nature to explain nature with some sort of supernatural force. The question is, why? Why explain the unexplained with some created deity? I mean, its not like some guy comes along and says "We have the sun because some god with a bird head makes it so". The reason is that the world is supernatural. Without a creator, it is obscenely unlikely.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist sorry, I don't buy that. Just because humans can imagine things doesn't mean they must exist. A more likely explanation is gods in particular are an anthropomorphism of nature. Man sees that he has parents and creates things and projects his experience onto nature creating a "parent" figure in the sky to have created him and explain all that he doesn't understand. Man creates god in his image and his newly made god returns the favor.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox The difference between anthropomorphism and imaginings is they are never wholeheartedly believed by huge amounts of people. Why would you believe that a book is nonfiction if it has magic/elves/dragons/in fiction section? I doubt that every single culture of the world would carve a deity out of stone and believe it to be real if no deity existed.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist my view is that because humans tend to create gods, demons, dragons, and other mythological beings (99.99% we can all agree are merely legends) it just shows that most likely 100% of man's imaginings are just that: imaginings. I mean you want to think thousands of gods and other legends are just legends, but the one view of god you happen to have been raised to believe in is the one that is actually true? Doesn't that strain even your credulity?
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox No, it doesn't. The way you determine if an idea is a myth or a legend is by evaluating it and determining its validity individually, not compared to other ideas.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@MystryBox No, it doesn't. The way you determine if an idea is a myth or a legend is by evaluating it and determining its validity individually, not compared to other ideas. At least, if you are practicing good science.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist huh? You're just making things up now. Of course we evaluate things based on our experience and knowledge. We have 1000 gods that man has created... you want to ignore than fact when someone makes a claim about another god? Good grief.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Stating the a "new god" must be wrong because other gods have been created is an appeal to precedent and is therefore inductive proof. I'll take the objective route when determining the nature of the universe.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist a new claim of a god isn't false because of past claims, but it is more suspect. You just love taking things to extremes so you can invalidate a strawman. Knock it off. Nobody is fooled except perhaps yourself.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox It may seem so because of the constraints of youtube comments :P. What I'm saying is that while it may be more suspect, this is not a true reason to Reject a new idea, but rather a reason to doubt it. Doubt, to a degree, is good, as is helps ensure that bad ideas don't come to fruition. However, when it comes to using the precedent to actually reject a new idea, then you are getting into bad territory. While myths may give reason for doubt, they do not give reason for rejection.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist the reason for rejection is the utter lack of decent evidence to support the claim being made. That there are other god claims also with no evidence that we accept as myth is just icing on the cake.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Okay, I would agree perfectly with that statement. You see, Icing by itself is useless. People don't just eat icing. That's why if I were to be an atheist, I would aim at the cake and not the icing.
I'm not denying that that "cake" exists, simply saying that arguing for the "icing" as a reason to be an atheist isn't a good idea. The "cake" is a separate debate from the one in this video.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist an atheist isn't a something, he is a not something, specifically not a theist. So it's a little weird talking about atheism because you're not talking about something, you're talking about the lack of something. People aren't theists for various reasons but generally because theists fail to make their case. There really is no positive case for atheists... you can't disprove all gods. Atheism is simply the state you're left in when theism has failed to make its case.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Well, yeah. I was saying that if I were an atheist, I would be an atheist not because there are 1000s of religions, but because, as you have said, they have failed to make their case.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist but it's not a small point that 1000 religions have failed to make their case... especially while most claim they have made their case yet have fail in similar ways. I basically spend all day pointing out to theists that the argument they are using on me they themselves don't believe when it is made from the viewpoint of a different religion. So it is a significant point.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox The second part of talking about the arguments made by multiple religions has been addressed by the video I provided.
On a basis of reasons to reject a religion, hypocrisy in arguments does not mean that all religions are false, just that they need to step back and analyze the argument for its true validity. If it is truly valid in equal amounts against both religions, then I would step back farther and analyze the overall position of the religions, instead of specifics.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@MystryBox For example, many of the events of Greek myths are perfectly rational is the Greek gods existed. To counter that religion on the basis of unrealism, you would have to attack their gods' existence, otherwise these events are plausible. Without the existence of the gods, however, they are immediately shown to be implausible. If I were attacking greek mythos, if I said "Its unreasonable that helen went along with paris" a greek would simply say "the gods did it."
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist sorry that your ignorant of the basics of burden of proof. I suggest you research it before I simply abandon any hope of intelligent discussion with you.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Burden of Proof means "He who Asserts Must Prove". The real question is who is asserting, you or me?
Now, we have the Bible. You callenged the Bible with a claim. That is an assertion, true or false. That assertion was backed by another assertion, which was backed by nothing. I pointed that out, and all you have done is gotten mad, denied it, insulted me, and mocked me. If this is how you argue, then we are done.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist by the way that miracles are unlikely is an observed fact. You want me to prove what is an observed fact because you cannot support your case and would rather put the burden on me. May I suggest that we should be able to agree on simple observed facts if this is to go anywhere. I've accepted that miracles/the supernatural are not impossible, so get to showing they exist.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Against your points specifically addressing historical accuracy, I have never seen any sort of historical information supporting your claims. If you could provide this support for your points, I would be happy to look into your sources.
With that conditional in mind, I will try to refute them with what I have. That "Common Source" would be the gospel documents themselves. All we have are copies. The false information needs to be specified before it can be supported. (word limit :P)
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist see my video "Does Prophecy Prove Christianity?" for an example of apparent fraud in the gospels along with some links.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Continued-Without specifications of what events you are referring to, this point can not be quantified or fully understood, so it so not stand until specifications of what supposed fabricated events are provided. They contain "legendary stories" because you don't believe in them in the first place. With an initial bias against the idea of a higher power acting outside of our reasoning, it is easy to assume that it is "legendary". This point lies outside the realm of discussion.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist I don't reject supernatural claims a priori as impossible, I reject them (as it reasonable and expected in rational discussion) as highly unlikely. If you want to try to support some highly unlikely and apparently mythical appearing claims I'm willing to be convinced with proper evidence, but until then I've no interest in "magic" or other childish nonsense presented with no support. I'll show you the same respect and not expect you to presume unlikely unsupported claims.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist also note that I explained how *historians* dismiss supernatural claims, and your response was to an unrelated issue about how I might respond to supernatural claims. My original point about historians stands as I made it. If you're just going to cut and paste some related, but misplaced, apologetic response to everything I say just to pretend to have responded, save us both some time and don't bother.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist by the way you're in no position to be comparing the gospels to Plutarch or any other historical writings because that's not how you approach them. I'm willing to treat them as historical documents but you are not. When historical writings mention supernatural occurrences those are recognized as myths. You actually want the bible to be treated differently. You want its supernatural claims accepted on their face but that is not how historical documents are treated.
MystryBox 1 year ago
Now, in regards to Paul, the greatest question is not whether he truly had visions, but whether his doctrine is concurrent with Christianity. In the case of Paul, actual disciples of Jesus said that his works were cannon. No such evidence stands in the support of John Smith, who's works pose significant contradictions to Christian teaching.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist of course his doctrine is "concurrent with Christianity" -- he was among those who basically invented the religion! And again who cares if some people at the time believed him. People believe Joe Smith too and he even had signed witnesses from men who claimed to have also witnessed an angel confirming who he was. Christianity can only dream of having such evidence. So do you believe Joe and his witnesses? So why believe Paul?
MystryBox 1 year ago
lol, "spam can" on the bookshelf in the background xD
TheRealJTzFusion 1 year ago
"Why do you believe Paul?" - Isn't that different from the point that you were making in your original video? First vid you ask why we doubt everybody else, but not our own beliefs. You say that saying "why you believe X" is very different from saying "why you doubt ~X", but then you ask why we believe Paul.
If you were NOT asking why we believe our particular religion, only why doubt all others, why ask us why we believe Paul? Doesn't that imply that both questions are REALLY the same thing?
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 I asked why do you believe Paul in the context that you doubt people like Joseph Smith. Why you doubt is specifically part of the question.
MystryBox 1 year ago
When will people learn to live a good life rather than living one without ethics? When education has wiped out the disease that is theism.
humanistheart 1 year ago
So obvious that all people blindly defend their own beliefs without thinking criticly...especially christians.
Poya6666 1 year ago
It's time for me to change myself. I've looked at other religions and just ignored them saying that there was just no way, whatever this is bull crap. But from now on, if something appears true, I understand that through just listening I understand more from both sides. So my point is, us lazy humans need to get up and stand. then stretch our bodies and our minds. It's time we all started listening to our family species. We all need to grow up.
awesomenessguess11 1 year ago
You must be thinking "no, no, no" and that I am thinking "yes, yes, yes", But consider yourself neither. You can't explain everything with a science-based algorithm. you The least you can say is that you don't believe anything. Being a Christian myself, I understand that Christians are very ignorant and they don't really listen to everything else. But that's just a stereotype. The truth is, I believe what I believe. I change it.
awesomenessguess11 1 year ago
With misunderstanding, a mere noob could prove anything wrong, and anything right. This aligns the misunderstanding across both sides of this argument of life. You see with Atheism as I explained, most Atheists try to explain why other religions aren't true, using a single model. And, other religions use a similar model to prove their religion so and away. I also understand that being an Atheist you know the Bible all around. But it's the want that draws out needs.
awesomenessguess11 1 year ago
I think that we shouldn't just ignore other religions, my religion clearly supports listening. So, I should listen. But with any lifestyle that we open our minds to, we have minor jumbled glimpses of other people's words. You're a very intelligent and quite peaceful frankly of a man, but there's difference with wisdom. And a man who calls himself wiser is lowest of wise men.
awesomenessguess11 1 year ago
Atheism IS believing that you don't believe anything. Of course your point is focused on reasons you don't believe anything else. The way I see it is that if you think that way, all religions are just our imagination, including atheism. See, there's always misunderstandings. You can't explain fully how something happened in the past because you weren't there. One thing to say is that I support the fact that anyone would believe what appears to them as legitimacy, with somewhat valid explanation.
awesomenessguess11 1 year ago
@awesomenessguess11 wrong...atheism is not believing anything as per your claim...just not believing in 'gods'
proudfemale 1 year ago
@proudfemale I never said that. A-theism: non-theism/against theism/without theism. Not believing anything is agnosticism. Even then, that wasn't even my main focus.
awesomenessguess11 1 year ago
@awesomenessguess11 wrong...why do yu keep dribbling?
all people believe in many things....e.g. they believe in things like love/family support/loyalty/human rights/etc etc
proudfemale 1 year ago
@proudfemale There is a difference in the words usuage. In one case it's believing something exists, in another case it's supporting things that we know exist, like human rights, loyalty, etc.
humanistheart 1 year ago
Deist use logic and support science. It is through logic to truely find the truth. I give the benefit of doubt to think if God doesn't exists. I cannot conclude that. Nature is the evidence God's existence.
Revolorio8 1 year ago
Oh ok those what you gave examples have a cause and effect. Humans break down all these natural events in their most simple form so we can understand them better. How come some things scientist and other experts can't explain. For example in psychology can't figure out why we dream and no real use for it but we need sleep if not our body will shut down over time. Why do we need a huge amount education to study nature. Deist dont come up with ignorant reasoning that God controls the world.
Revolorio8 1 year ago
Plants have the same type of "organs" (I dont remember their internal). Nature is a whole system that is made up many systems (e.g. Water Cycle). Please inform me of one natural and unintelligent discovery. I can't think of any. Look at our universe how other universals are same as ours. Its amazing how our universe is align in a certain way and the planets revolove around the sun. Sun is the primary source of energy that is giving this earth life. Without the sun we are all dead.
Revolorio8 1 year ago
@Revolorio8 everything that you mention is due to natural, unintelligent processes. All those things used to be explained by appealing to gods or spirits or demons or whatever. But everything we uncover is instead natural and unintelligent explanations due to the properties of nature.
MystryBox 1 year ago 3
@MystryBox
But doesn't that beg the question as to what initiated the process?
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 if the processes were initiated it's quite reasonable to assume something natural and unintelligent initiated it. We observe a vast universe with uncountable processes initiated yet they are all initiated by a natural and unintelligent cause (with the except of things we start ourselves).
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox
But if we are capable of initiating things ourselves, why would a higher intelligence not be reasonable to assume in initiating other processes?
Why assume all naturalism?
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 sure it's a reasonable assumption. But it's an assumption. There is no evidence to bare out some super intelligent being responsible for everything. That view is exactly what you state... an extension of our view of our human reality (e.g. our having parents) onto nature. When you actually examine to discover what is likely true no intelligence has ever been found, only unintelligent natural processes.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox hey just one question. I dont believe any much my self but if you say everything is due to the properties of nature then.... what caused nature??? Then iv heard ohhh its because of the big bang... the chances are not even real. So im sry to say im not stupid enough to believe i involved from a fucking monkey. I feel like there is a purpose for people. If there isn't then whats the point of us even being here.
stevosg258 7 months ago
@stevosg258 nature existed in some form even before the big bang. Nature has always existed. And sorry if you don't want to think you evolved. Sometimes truth isn't what we might want.
MystryBox 7 months ago
@MystryBox Okay if you think nature has always been here then when was the first sign of man?? There has always been some connection to the past through people and you said that nature has always been here then there would a forever connection with the past and that is not true. And by the way idk if you dont know but humans come from vaginas not monkeys.
stevosg258 7 months ago
@stevosg258 do you really expect me to take you seriously and spend time on you when you say idiotic things like "idk if you dont know but humans come from vaginas not monkeys"?
MystryBox 7 months ago
@Revolorio8 The Vagus nerve.
The mammalian eye and its blind spot
balkan2k 1 year ago
@balkan2k What?! If you have something to say just say it. Dont give me this name calling thing you have going. Do you disagree what i believe with me then give me a strong logical argument. Please no logical fallacies. I will ignore you if you just do that and see you as an ignorant.
Revolorio8 1 year ago
@Revolorio8 WTF? You were asking for natural unintelligent designs! The vagus nerve and the mammalian eye are both cases of unintelligent design, *especially* the vagus nerve. What names did I call you??? Please do tell!
balkan2k 1 year ago
@balkan2k Oh Im sorry i thought you were telling me names i misunderstood you.
Revolorio8 1 year ago
@Revolorio8 No problem m8. But you should go look it up ;-)
balkan2k 1 year ago
@balkan2k I will Thank you. Cells that replicate uncontrollably are consider a cancer/tumor. The cells act intelligently and receive nutrients (e.g. water, lipids, proteins). The cell must stop replicating eventually if not it will crush vital organs or rip muscles.
Revolorio8 1 year ago
Give me an example something discovered that is both natural and unintelligent. The reasoning i believe that nature is created by one God is when you observe the work one person are done differently; for example, you can notice the quality of product of one company than another. I'm a huge electronic buyer person when i look for electronics Sony is the brand I look for. Look at how our internal body (human) and internal of any animal have the same organs not exact same size.
Revolorio8 1 year ago
@Revolorio8 give you an example of something we used to think was caused by gods (or demons) but instead we found was due to natural and unintelligent properties of nature? Um how about lightning, disease, earthquakes, mental illness, etc., etc. How about EVERYTHING we've ever discovered about our world?
MystryBox 1 year ago