I find Michael Shermer to be an extremely pleasant and good guy. He is willing to talk to people on both sides of the aisles and keeps a pretty darn good balance between scepticism and open-mindedness. Not many guys are able to do it as good as he does it. Kudos Michael!
@Mel Dummar My purpose in the world is to bring a smile, My success rate is low amongst youtube atheists. However, even my lack of success brings a smile to some, therefore, I guess the purpose of a youtube atheist is to say dumb things which I may use to bring smiles.
“Once beliefs are formed, the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, which adds an emotional boost of further in the beliefs and thereby accelerates the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive feedback loop of belief...M. Shermer - Why People Believe
Luuk's argument rests almost entirely on the idea that "these people REALLY believed in this." But this has no bearing at all on whether or not the beliefs are based on something that is true. It's an immediate and complete fail as a logical argument.
On the other hand Shermer based his argument on how likely an event is to happen. But I think he would agree that miracles by definition are not possible naturally, so talking about the probability is illogical as be definition as it should be 0. (Human limbs can't grow back so he gave that as example, but never finish that thought and concluded that it was because it has a 0 probability of happening that he would except it.) Though I wouldn't say the Bible meets the standard to be taken as historical facts. I will say that most history is based on what people believed happened then hopefully we get to double check with archeology. So saying that what they believed is not relevant would make history impossible to do. Though I would agree that more then one type of evidence is needed.
Were Jesus' miracles believable? His family didn't think so: 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses." (Mk. 3:21 NAU) 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him (Jn. 7:5 NAU) If even his own family didn't find his miracles very credible, I could hardly be unreasonable to infer that Jesus was nothing more than a first-century Benny Hinn. Apparently, his ability to convince thousands of people that he did a miracle, implies audience gullibility before it implies the miracles were genuinely supernatural.
Luuk and Michael did clearly presented their arguments. The moderator, Justin, was fair and directed the conversation in the right direction. Great job everyone!
Miracles are a true and real phenomenon! Miracles are when religious people take a coincidence as a hit while ignoring the overwhelming misses. Backing up their "miracle" claims with arguments from ignorance fallacies. "I don't know how something could have occurred, therefore, I invoke my particular brand of an imaginary friend as an answer." This is miracles at work...
What you're saying is something a lot of people certainly do with prayer like someone who prays for a job going into an interview and then gives god credit when they get the job ignoring all the previous interviews that were failures but they never declare it a miracle (maybe only as a figure of speech same way an atheist might) only you have done that, it's confirmation bias. The word Miracle is more often attributed by religious people to apparitions, people surviving life threatening injuries, premonitions that come true saving lives and things of that nature.
@Captain 7 Sure, it is, if it weren't you have tried to rebut what I stated. Instead simply resorted to an ad hominem rather than addressing what was stated.
we are a race that is here purely because of the number of coincidences is astronomical, and i never tire of believers saying "you hear this all the time, god saved this life) if it happens all the time, not so much miraculous.
@avcostello1 "persistent claim for the reason for their deaths was their belief in Jesus being the Son of God who rose from the dead" You are saying that since these people may have believed Jesus 'Appeared' to them as an apparition or materially then It must be true It was an objective fact People have risen from being dead . Even If there were killed for claiming this was True How does that establish it was true. Its like saying David Koresh was God because many dozens of his followers choose to stay with him and be burned alive , While according to the Gospel accounts The disciples who were in a position to know fled Jerusalem when Jesus was captured .
@@dmc3079 Because Dan Barker is a laughingstock. He believes in Jesus methisism which has been debunked by scholars and goes against the near unanimous scholarly opinion of the majority of scholars. Also Christians should get their act together first what does that even mean. It’s just nonsense like everything else he says.
@@webslinger527 "Also Christians should get their act together first what does that even mean" - Good question for Dan. But my take on it is that its difficult to convince atheists about christiaity being true when there is so many different sects of christianity with different views about the same story. How does one determine which version is the right one?
@@dmc3079 It’s not hard to determine which sect of Christianity is true if you just do your research. Catholicism isn’t the way because you pray to Saints which goes against multiple things that Jesus stated. Jehovah witnesses take the Bible literally which is not how the Bible was made it was made with a lot of theological metaphorical meaning. Here’s an example Moses left Egypt at 40 he was with the Midianites for 40 years and he was in the desert for 40 years these are theological numbers. Unless you believe that I person who is almost 120 climb a mountain to get Stone Commandments. Mormons Have been disproven countless times and their claims have been debunked by scientists when they say that Israelites were Native Americans and they’re so easy to debunk that even a South Park episode was able to do so. There’s more to it but that’s just a basic way of looking at it.
Great debate. Would have loved to see Richard Carrier or Bob Price do this, as they have more biblical knowledge. Either way Justin Brierley is the best. He seems so fair to both sides. Love that dude.
It is hard to see how those early followers could have been fooled. Good point Luuk about people dying for something they were told vs something they experienced (102:40).
SHERMER IS RIGHT ! SCIENCE, LOGIC, REASON AND CRITICAL THINKING CHALLENGING THE CLAIMS, BELIEFS AND SUPERSTITIONS THAT SO MANY OF WE HUMANS ACCEPT WITHOUT QUESTION !
What a naive reading of the ancient sources by Luuk V. This is what happens when faith informs your "scholarship". Truly baffling that this is tolerated at the PhD level.
I am a Christian, with a PhD, and unfortunately, I must agree with you :). Shermer gave a well staged :) logical rhetorically powerful speech. Luuk should have done far better. The visual aids with Pinokio dragged his performance even lower. I am afraid he does not understand the issue, underestimates his opponent and is not skeptical enough to stand up to the task. I am disappointed.
I’ll sum up this Luuk dude: The Bible described that this one thing happened, and some other things too...RiGhT? I’m not a liar and I’m not a fool. 46:00 “They wouldn’t use capital punishment for minor magic.” “They knew sorcery implied supernatural.” No they hung him for sorcery and ENTICING Israel. No, they called it sorcery because that word effectively evoked fear in the people to avoid and ignore Jesus because he was going against the status quo of traditional Jewish narratives and thus putting the power structure at risk. He was a charismatic cult leader who was trying to ENTICE people into his way of thinking. This guy is intellectually dishonest. He’s making assumptions about what the leaders believed in order to push his agenda.
What apologist Vandeweghe, like Turek, Geisler, Craig and others, never gets around to, is whether after the passing of 2,000 years, it is today's Christian, not the skeptic, who has the burden of proof to show that anything in the NT "applies to us today".
It’s disingenuous to assume those who don’t accept the miracle claims believe the NT authors or early Christians were intentionally lying or misleading. Sophomoric at best. Gospel authors never claim to be eyewitnesses, and scholarly consensus is the books were anonymously written, with the names we know the as attached at a later date. This is not a debate, no evidence is being presented, simply an appeal to emotion.
Why do apologists love to use things out of context so much? He brings up the Sanhedrin text without mentioning the fact that it's unclear first of all who the 'Yesu' in the passage is as it was a very common name and if you want to claim it's your specific Jesus, then you have to deal with the fact that it states the trial went on for 40 days and that Yesu was stoned before being hung and it doesn't mention crucifixion. But hey if misinforming brings people to God then I guess it's permissible.
I don't believe anyone doubts that the apostles really believed in whatever they believed. That however, doesn't make whatever they believed true though. I don't understand why christians still bring that up.
Why do atheist make the ridiculous rule we cannot use the bible as historical accounts? History is the recording of past events but the wimpy atheist know if they admit the bible in as accounts of what people saw (Peter: "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty") they have to admit they are morons and missed the boat on God and to be blunt are quite stupid.
I have seen miracles that equal those found in scripture. But people would tell me that I am just mistaken, delusional, or that they can be explained by natural process. So the debate is moot.
Is it not possible that your perceptions can be mistaken? Why do you think it is more likely that some magical thing(s) happened than you simply had an error in judgement or perception?
It amazes me how and why people are impressed by unverifiable anecdotes, claims, myths and legends from a 2000 year old compendium of bronze age middle eastern fairy tales.
@@youtubemoderationtaskforce5583 Michael and Luuk's voices are very similar. I think your vision is biasing your ears. He does LOOK similar to Kip from napoleon dynamite, but sounds nothing like him. Kip's voice is higher pitched and is purposely effeminate by resonating and accenting his S's. Michael and Luuk both speak with similar pitch and timbre. They both lean into consonants in a similar way.
@@cwjalexx I just listened again. I didn’t use my vision this time. Alright, on a scale from one to ten, and Kip from Napoleon dynamite is 10, I would say Luuk is like an 8 and Michael is a 4. So Michael is 6 notches away from kip and luuk is only 2. And luuk and Michael are still 4 notches away from each other. Side note: Some deep voiced black guy would be 1 on the scale.
@@youtubemoderationtaskforce5583 I don't know what your scale means. Are you referring to pitch? timbre? inflection? pronunciation? Kip's voice is so different to my ear. He's purposely trying to sound effeminate with his emphasis on the letter "S". It's been shown in studies that our perception of how "S" is pronounced heavily influences what gender we think we are hearing. He also speaks with higher pitch. Michael and Luuk are speaking with like only 10 hz of difference in frequency.
1:47:55 Luuk, with all of his biblical degrees, shows us his lack of critical thinking skills. ... including equating his faith in the dentist's mysterious "tooth filling capabilities" with Jesus' plethora of capabilities (Universe making / loaf and fish multiplication)
and... I can verify if my dentist uses the correct procedure. By patients I know if theyr fillings are correctly done, by asking him to show me, asking which collega he wen't to, showing the diplomas. Try that with God, I know people that trust him but still died at early age in a car accident, i know people that trust him doing miracles but they can't show me how he did it. (you have to have faith...) and sure a 2000y old book isn't a solely trustworthy reference or 'diploma'
@@HarryNicNicholas If you can work out the odds then it likely isn't a miracle but rather just credited as a miracle. I think that is more what Shermer's argument proves. But his example of a human limb growing back would convince him, backs up Vince's statement above. Maybe double check before you accuse others of not paying attention....
@@viperstriker4728 He was talking about what people sometimes take as miracles. Miracles that defy natural laws just dont exist which is something of a miracle in itself.
@@skyteus Been a while since I watched this but pretty sure at least half of Jesus's miraculous would have had to broke the natural laws to be true. That's the debate, and to change it to your statement would be starting on the atheist side.
@@dennisheffy3220 it looks like you are giving words synonymous with the word true. The question being asked of you is: What has to be true in order for you to say miracles are inarguable?
Irrespective of the content of their respective arguments, many UA-cam should take the spirit and nature of the debate to heart. And interestingly (at least to me), it reflects in the comments.
Wow.......so there were believers many years ago who died for their faith........so what. Doesn’t mean they saw a resurrection or a Jesus.....just that they believed like every Christian since. Also, they only mention the Christians who died and not the many believers who recanted. Same as the mormons don’t really mention all the witnesses who later recanted.
when my mum was still alive and suffering the terminal cancer, i wanted to swap places with her for her to get better. but it wasnt to be. that's what the jesus or other diety or ideology is, a false hope in miracles, despite reality. i much prefer reality than making up stuff like a child and fear driven to welcome ignorance as a sign of goodness or strength. funny how a liar makes a big point of being able to tell liars from truth speakers. we all lie a little, every day. are we liars? are we sinners? if you already bought into the ideas, then you have serious considerations. when you realize dichotomies rarely exist, human nature is more complex that liars or believers, you will be free of this fake idea of sin...which rather than a (fake) god enduring, becomes your mind jail unable to reach reality.
Captain 7 : i wasnt born speaking english but, it's "you're". anyway, just asserting a hidden super good and super bad diety is an argument from ignorance, i.e. stating things without any evidence. so you're merely asserting stuff and pretending you're saying something of substance. it's just life..and death. i didnt assume i was special. what does that have to do with dealing with anything? i know each day is a bonus. you feel free to comment on someone's loss with your absurd nothings. i dont need any fake reverence. on the other hand, silly comments arent particularly called for. there is no "wrong idea about god", as we each have a personal take on this myth of an idea.
Your experience has given you the perspective that Christianity is nothing but a false hope in miracles. At its core, however, you won't find any of that. Never in the Bible are believers instructed to pray or wait for miracles to happen. Rather, we're told to endure, because life *will* suck. Your view of Christianity is based on false premises.
Ummm one little problem with Vandeweghe saying what Peter saw Jesus do... he never MET Jesus. No one who wrote about Jesus met the guy, it's all hearsay!
These beliefs are impressive in the 21st century. You would think these beliefs are impossible, but with Luuk’s opening, it seems humans can believe anything.
Case in point you moronic atheist believe a rat like land animal ate insects from a lake and evolved in to whales...lol...Why do atheist make the ridiculous rule we cannot use the bible as historical accounts? History is the recording of past events but the wimpy atheist know if they admit the bible in as accounts of what people saw (Peter: "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty") they have to admit they are morons and missed the boat on God and to be blunt are quite stupid.
_"These beliefs are impressive in the 21st century. You would think these beliefs are impossible, but with Luuk’s opening, it seems humans can believe anything. "_ Yes as you are evidence of.
Bret Zajac It is obvious that you need to read up on evolution, so i will completely ignore that part of the comment. Even if the bible is an accurate account of what people saw (although it is written decades later and even edited, as well as not even second hand reports) it still wouldn’t warrant belief in the impossible [resurrection]. Just because i tell you something, doesn’t mean its true. This should be obvious. This is why there is a clear distinction between science and religion. The standards for evidence in science are absurdly high, to start they need to pass 95% accuracy in statistics (significance test). To believe something impossible happened because, YOU WERE TOLD. Is foolish
@@croakingfrog3173 Well, if a deity was omnibenevolent, like the Christians claim their Abrahamic god is, then he WOULD eradicate disease and evil, etc. But since that hasn't happened, it logically follows to conclude that that god ethier exists but is apathetic to our hardships, he exists but is powerless to stop evil, he exists and he IS evil, or he simply does not exist at all. Ethier way, fuck that god if he created hell to torture people in forever. What a loser.
There may have been eyewitnesses, but none of them wrote about the experience. All we have are tales of their experiences by third parties who were not eyewitnesses themselves.
Anonymous stories based on anonymous storytelling of a magic man who broke every jewish law and wasn't slain on the spot like everyone before them... But no one bothered to mention the guy who fed 5k people. BS, never have 5k people been anywhere and no one writes about a hyper magic that produced food for everyone. The child whos food was turned into a feast, where is he?
@@kmtgoddess7793 I will get back to you on that. My current opinion about that is; Yahweh did not need to destroy the Roman Empire as he knew that mankind would do the job.
If the miracles of Jesus had really occurred, then they would still be accompanying the minisitry of todays's followers of Jesus. We should expect to have this consistency, for as John 14:12 says: "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." The absence of those miracle demonstrates that we can falsify the Gospel, for the prophecy is false.
Biblical exegetes have seen that passage as pertaining to the apostles and therefore fulfilled. The other claim that a miracle should could continue to happen today in the same or greater degree and in the same or greater frequency by definition makes a miracle the norm and not a miracle.
@@andys3035, there is no textual evidence to support your claim that Jesus only had his apostles in mind. On the contrary, exegesis of the NT text indicates that Jesus applies his teachings to all his followers. For example, visions and prophecies are supposed to continue to the end times. This is why evangelical churches claim that they have a miraculous healing ministry, through prayer and the laying on of hands, as well as the gift of prophecy, and these signs are not suposed to disappear, e.g. Acts 2:17: " 'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams." Miracles are supposed to accompanyJesus' followers. This would not contradict the definition of miracle, which is an event attributable to divine intervention, not explicable through natural or scientific means. As for getting prophecy right, Christians probably have the worst track record, even arguably beaten by pagan Nostradamus! Just do a search on Christian prophecies throughout the ages! Jesus himself erroneously prophesied the end of the Age and the coming of God's kingdoms "while some standing here" are stil alive, and in another Gospel, within the lifetime of the generation of his listeners. With hindsight, we can see that Jesus mis-read thei signs of his times, and got it wrong. That's why you're still waiting for the Second Advent, even after the passage of some 2,000 years! Note also Mark 16:18: "They will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." Christians are not particularly favoured - they succomb to disease and harm just like everybody else. There is nothing special about Christians. Amputees or people with withered arms don't have their limbs restored through prayer.
@@psandbergnz This is very simple indeed, even an atheist can get there. The gifts, healing etc were not for all times the bible made that clear. they ceased after Acts if you check the 4 Prison Epistles and the 3 Pastoral Epistles you will see they have disappeared. note too that in What Paul could do in Acts 28, he could no longer do in Philippians, or in 1 and 2 Timothy. Taking one passage out of context is the indication you are communicating with atheists. poor things lol.
@@sarahclark5447 , I showed from Acts 2:17 ("in the last days..") you are wrong that the gifts were supposed to cease. The fact that they no longer operate makes it implausible that they EVER operated, even with Jesus himself. Mark 16:17-18 says that "WHOEVER" believes and is baptised will have signs accompanying them, such as driving out demons and not succombing to lethal poison and snakes. So it is a prophecy not limited to the apostles or time. It is clearly a failed prophecy, since now, with 2,000 years of hindsight behind us, we know that Christians have no special protection from poison or snakes or anything else. The epistles of Paul and the Pastoral epistles do NOT say that the gifts had disappeared. Note that the epistles were written BEFORE the book of Acts was, so you clearly don't understand much about the Bible! Your argument that "what Paul could do in Acts 28 he could no longer do in Philippians or in Timothy" MAKES NO SENSE! Acts was around 80 AD (just after Luke), whereas the epistles were written around the 40s or 50s AD. Note also that the four Gospels are ANONYMOUS - nobody has a clue who the authors of any of them are - so you have no basis for insisting that they are reliable writings. The Gosp[els are just hearsay from unkwnown writers. They are not written by eyewitnesses (all written in the 3rd person), and don't claim to be.
@UCu9rxwZN9igTmBJijYF8rJA Well, Bret, the reason is very simple, it's the same reason they try to redefine atheism as 'don't ask me anything' and I want to label you, but don't label me. As regards the bible that is simple too they do not want evidence, where did you get that idea?
MS seems to have a limited reading of the NT if he says that only one person is brought back to life. Lazarus was raised after 3 days in a tomb presaging Jesus, who also revived Jairus daughter from seeming death - though Jesus says she was merely sleeping. The Acts of the Apostles include examples of the the disciples raising the dead.
I consider Luuk Vandeweghe poor in this debate. Although the issue of miracles is more general than only the miracles of Jesus and this was the topic, I can't take seriously any approach that doesn't explain why ALL others people miracles are fake and only "mine" are real. Or the believer deals with that or we have doors fully opened to some sort of relativism (which no apologist is opened to accept). As Shermer said we have no record of people returning from death, and if someone came to us saying that another person really did, even if this messenger was able to kill and die for it, we wouldn't buy it, because is much more plausible that something is missing and the resurrection is not the best explanation. In the same sense that if open your fridge and your icecream is missing, even if your house was locked and you live alone etc., nobody would suppose that your icecream ascended to heavens in glory. Even if I can't explain how it disappeared, only a fool would go for the supernatural explanation. I'm not anti-religious and I don't think religion is poison and all this BS from new atheists and I'm all for Shermer's point about the Fatima miracles: any protestant has the burden to prove all catholic miracles are fake and if he can't, to respond why isn't he a catholic. And all the same or to other people religions and miracles.
5 років тому+1
Trolltician and if catholic miracles are real than why are you not catholic?
by definition he can't be rational, everything he has is based on a god myth. i bet you find it really easy to dismiss the islamic miracles. god: "i love you, you will love me, or, i will burn you alive every day for eternity" sounds like a distant relative of hannibal lector. tell me, do you personally think you are going to heaven, or hell, i'd like to hear your reasons.
Most of what Luuk is stating here has been debunked several times before by now. He’s not really funding his claims with valid evidence. Also : check out some historians like Richard Carrier or even Bart Ehrman, the last one even believes that Jesus is a historical figure.
What is highly ironic is where defenders of atheism or ‘no god’ groups proudly boast of authors to define ideas, for example, that their understanding of ‘miracles’ i.e. hume is correct to begin with bemusedly behave like christians with the bible - and trusting it as truth.
The major difference being the scientific philosophers relying on thousands upon thousand of written reference books and materials. Whereas theologians relying on only one non scientific reference book.
You clearly have failed to grasp what i am saying. Why do atheists PRESUME the reasoning of these philosophers were 100% correct or even understood the nature of miracles as DEFINED by Christianity or jewish faith rather than they DEFINE miracles by their own terms. You haven’t studied theology to say ppl of faith do no refer to non religeous texts. Have you even read?
I don't know of any scientific philosophers having held a 100% belief in reference materials. In fact, most scientific philosophers will stop at "I don't know" or "It can't be held as certain" when it comes to unanswered questions of the nature of reality or the physical world. Whereas theologians don't end at "I don't know" as a long studied conclusion, but begin at "I know for certain" as a starting point before rational investigation.
Michael shermer HAD blind faith hume understood miracles thats why he used Hume as the definition FOR explaining what a miracle IS. So your argument FAILED. You use science and except everything science claims as truth therefore you are acting like believers with god.
@@gjeacocke "Michael Shermer HAD blind faith Hume understood miracles" Just to be clear, those are YOUR words of Michael Shermer's mindset and are a presumption of his standing on belief systems. Hume can be used as an example of reference not an end-all-be-all to the greater context of the nature of reality. You and I have our own personal perspectives on belief systems, but we cannot attribute or project our personal beliefs onto others personal beliefs. That is a dogmatism unto itself.
There is no independent contemporary corroborating evidence for ANYthing Luuk Vandeweghe thinks he knows about Jesus or his life. (Referencing discussion at about 1:18 in the discussion section, as well as pretty much everything else he claims.)
Josephus lived in Jerusalem at the same time James the brother of Jesus was stoned to death. It caused such an uproar he recorded the stoning in his writings. Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus' brother.
@@TheSpaniard-5337 "historians who reffer to Jesus and the christians." Right but Referring to later Christians is not even the same as a historian who was a contemporary of Jesus writing he existed much less good reason to believe Jesus could have the acts attributed to him.
Why do atheist make the ridiculous rule we cannot use the bible as historical accounts? History is the recording of past events but the wimpy atheist know if they admit the bible in as accounts of what people saw (Peter: "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty") they have to admit they are morons and missed the boat on God and to be blunt are quite stupid.
@@bretzajac7986 The most important event in all of history ordained by the most powerful being in the universe is completely absent from the history books at the time they supposedly happened. Why is your god so incompetent? The jews weren't convinced jesus was divine - this was after supposedly after seeing him control the weather, raising the dead, healing people, seeing *their* own prophecies being fulfilled. Jesus couldn't do magic tricks for Pilate & Caiaphas - the word this individual is "fraud" So we are stupid because we give an all powerful, loving deity (if he/she existed) more credit than you do? I'm not worshiping any deity that's less moral and has less common sense than I do. Any deity that had to kill himself to save his creation from himself because a ribwoman ate magic fruit is a pretty pathetic god. If I missed the boat to your baby killing god, that's a good thing.
Did Luuk claim that there’s not extraordinary evidence for evolution? Only in America, :(. Kids, pay attention in science class. Go to a secular college.
Here, more on our amazing history. To better illustrate life on Earth, extend out both your arms to your left and right. The Earth is to date at least 4.6 billion years old and that beginning is represented at the tips of your right middle finger. There’s evidence that single celled bacteria existed at your right wrist. Then life existed as such for another 3 billion years. Then at your left elbow we see the most basic of multi cellular life. Mammals didn’t show up until around the base knuckle of your left fingers. The human species only exists in the last millimeter of your left middle finger. Add to this, we probably wouldn't have risen to our status if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out by an asteroid 66 mya. Some design huh, it incredible, just not evidence of a god speaking things into existence.
@@seanjones2456 Blasphemy, a victimless crime? :) Do you think the Ark Encounter creates more believers or non believers? I predict the latter. Speaking of farts, one window on that ark woulda proved the quick demise of all life on that floating zoo. Ridiculous that grown people believe that story. I know 4 yr olds that call bullshit.
This was kinda hard to watch. Instead of debunking Hume and addressing mythologies directly, Luuk harped on Christian martyrdom for his rebuttal, didn't bring up C. S. Lewis until the end of his second rebuttal, and MICHAEL the one who brought up Jordan Peterson! *facepalm* Michael threw such an easy ball and Luuk missed it.
Heinrich Schliemann discovered the city of Troy based upon Homer's the illiad. So Luke pin pointing a known island is evidence of jesus. That must mean the story of Achilles is true, and therefore the mount Olympus is real.
Why do atheist make the ridiculous rule we cannot use the bible as historical accounts? History is the recording of past events but the wimpy atheist know if they admit the bible in as accounts of what people saw (Peter: "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty") they have to admit they are morons and missed the boat on God and to be blunt are quite stupid.
@@doctorwebman you sound insane or uninformed. We have witness statements we can compare to observation. By your standards unless it happens in front of you its circular reasoning? What an ego you have. How would any legal case go forward if you are using eye witness testimony to "prove" a point? You as a lawyer would say "Hey we cant use it because its circular reasoning in that its his eye witness testimony but i don't like it". You sound like a little brat arguing with his mommy not to eat his vegetables.
@@bretzajac7986 Yes, sane people will seem insane to insane people. You have zero eyewitness accounts. None of the gospels are eyewitness accounts, and there are no eyewitness accounts outside the Bible, either. You have nothing but hearsay. You can't use the hearsay to prove the hearsay is true. That is circular reasoning. Here is your circular reasoning: The Bible says Jesus was resurrected. How do we know Jesus was resurrected? Because, the Bible says so.
And you can see the same or worse in his knee-jerk opponents, including those in the bureaucracy who had no business trying to sabotage a sitting president.
It's fine to be skeptical. But it's also fine to believe in your experiences of the paranormal or supernatural even if "Shermers Science" says i don't know. He misses the mark on the precognitive dreaming too. Throwing numbers around about one specific dream. Those who consistently have precognitive dreams experience a pattern over time. They're not just one offs. But we need Shermer to balance things out. His Joe Rogan episode with Graham Hancock is an interesting view.
Luke was 2 minutes into the narrative he was building a pity image trying to wake up our sorry for the Christians.. I was bored.. then he said this man healed people .. ahh just like the modern healers .. we got people burning themselves for Buddha or poison their children for a supposed prophet .. and this in modern time were those fools .. no they were fooled.. rest my case
Debate content well-researched and well prepared. Delivery believable. Some doubt that miracles actually happen...oh...until they need one or their child or spouse just experienced one.
That my child would experience one doesn't make it true. And if a radical, highly emotional event made me experience one doesn't make it true either. It's like the claim that religion brings people solace as argument for religion. Finding solace in untruth is no solace to me. There are enough times we lie to ourselves already to make ourselves feel better to add another one.
@@sarahclark5447 I prayed this morning that God would keep me safe on my commute to work, and he granted that prayer since I got to work safely. So, why did he grant that prayer but has never once granted an amputee's prayer to regrow their limb?
@@77megapixels53 I am pleased you felt your prayer was answered. Given you are having your prayers answered pray to God he will answer your question concerning the amputee. When you have done so give it a week or so since you are not going to receive an audible answer since the answer is already at hand to you and it's going to take a few days for you to realise that such a post to me will not solicit a reply like you would receive from one of your dumb mates, as actually, I think you have the capacity to get there if your stupidity wasn't pandered to. if you cant I will point you to why that is. So go to your room go on your knees and ask God to soften Sarah's heart so thee miserable fool you are will be tolerated by her. If you are too proud to go on your knees to almighty God you have bigger problems than asking about the here and now. If you want to continue debating that is fine by me, however, this will not end in the way you think it will so think hard before responding as the wise atheist would run away.
@@sarahclark5447 ok, just prayed to god about amputees. I'll wait a week and report back. BTW, what should I be on the lookout for for a reply since, you know, it won't be audible?
Why do atheist make the ridiculous rule we cannot use the bible as historical accounts? History is the recording of past events but the wimpy atheist know if they admit the bible in as accounts of what people saw (Peter: "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty") they have to admit they are morons and missed the boat on God and to be blunt are quite stupid.
The thoughts of an atheist:- _"Are the miracles of Jesus unbelievable?""_ _" short answer is YES, thanks for coming."_ The actions of secular atheistic governments- the cause of the worst atrocities the world has ever known. more murdered in the 20th century than murdered in all other centuries combined. Thanks for coming.
The reasoning of an atheist and a Christian- Atheist: Are the miracles of Jesus unbelievable?" Yes . Christian: Are the miracles of Jesus unbelievable?" No. Question. was the universe, coming into existence a miracle or an act of God. Give your evidence with your answer.
@@sarahclark5447 *The actions of secular atheistic governments- the cause of the worst atrocities the world has ever known. more murdered in the 20th century than murdered in all other centuries combined* Sarah, you're an ignoramus. The atrocities of the 20th century were enacted by Totalitarian dictatorships, all of which suppressed anything considered to be a challenge to the core politic or ideology, that included religions. Ironically, the structure of these regimes was almost identical to a theocracy, where the leader adopted the role of a godhead. Not one SINGLE example of such atrocities was perpetrated in the name of atheism, but through the ideological 'principles' of Communism. Ironically, Hitler was a theist who appealed to almighty god on numerous occasions for his actions, you've evidently never read Mein Kampf have you! When you have the slightest idea what you're talking about you can reply Again, thanks for coming ;)
@@sarahclark5447 *Atheist: Are the miracles of Jesus unbelievable?" Yes * Because there is zero objective evidence any such thing ever happened. Some iron age anonymous authors claiming otherwise is not remotely good evidence *Christian: Are the miracles of Jesus unbelievable?" No*. Because being a Christian involves indoctrination, credulity and gullibility. *Question. was the universe, coming into existence a miracle or an act of God. Give your evidence with your answer* Not only is this a false dichotomy, it's demonstrably false as the evidence for the Big Bang is exclusively natural.
@@HughJaxident67 _"Atheist: Are the miracles of Jesus unbelievable?" Yes * Because there is zero objective evidence any such thing ever happened. Some iron age anonymous authors claiming otherwise is not remotely good evidence"_ Sadly for you, "Some iron age anonymous authors" have credibility you do not have, it's very sad that you have become such a low-value creature, but you can redeem yourself if you want since I really, really want to become an atheist. I'm prepared to bang my head against the wall repeatedly in order to meet the IQ requirement of 36. However, before I do so I would like evidence atheism is true. I understand you will redefine it not to mean a denial of a Gods existence, but I spoke to a card-carrying, atheist on the number 13 bus, he had the white lab coat, the homemade laminated badge, coloured in, and he almost stayed within the lines. it was definitely genuine since the badge said I love Dick Dawkins on it, and it was signed by the Dick himself, said that you guys get a signed photograph of the great man the Lord Jesus Christ oh, sorry I meant to say our lord Dick Dawkins, and two candles to put either side of the great man Dick Head of biology. now I need evidence that you have the lab coat and the laminated badge since the man on the number 13 bus said he had conclusive proof that atheism is true, otherwise, he would be an agnostic. I should tell you now I have the bar set to accept your evidence the same as you have set mine, so I reject any evidence whatsoever that atheism is true and correct but I am open minded and want your evidence so I can reject it. That's the level of credibility you have.
Oh I see. And then no more ‘miracles’ for 2,000 years right? Miracle claims are common in all religions but of course in the main Westerners only get exposed to the Christian ones.
If jesus existed at all... The whole plot of the book arcs toward a warrior king to save the jews... Once and for all from all the horrors theyve lived through, except even Israel now acknowledges they were never slaves in egypt which would kind of blow the plot completely out of the water for all the things jesus had to come back and fullfill. If you can even convince me the plot of the story makes sense then I'd be open to discuss the specfics of how we know for a fact that the jesus character in the bible never existed and to use the books own words to disprove it in the same way we disprove joseph smiths new christian sequel mormonism.
"would anything be impossible?!" yes most theologians believe there are things that even a God couldnt do, mostly because they are or might be illogical. Are you saying all things are actually possible if there is a god?
@@jdetres01 The ignorance in your comment is appalling. There are two portrayals of Messiah in the Old Testament: one as a lowly sufferer, and one as a glorious conqueror. Prior to the coming of Jesus, one theory was that there would be two separate messiahs. We now know that it simply refers to two comings of the same one, one of which happened, and one of which is still to come. Israel also hasn't abandoned the Exodus story. Netanyahu certainly hasn't. And asking ethnic, rather than religious Jews is the wrong way to go. The evidence for the Exodus is staggering, people just got the dates all wrong. It's basically proven at this point, historians just need to arrive at a consensus on the matter.
There is no such thing as the gospel of Mark as if Mark had written it. The papyrus fragments containing this gospel is said to be the gospel ACCORDING to Mark. Most scholars believe that it was written anonymously, and that the name of Mark was attached later to link it to an authoritative figure.The oldest one has been dated between AD 150 and 250. The current complete gospel is a compilation of all the fragments found.
Christianity’s Sophistry is airtight. It’s had millennia to refine its strategies. Like a Chinese finger trap that ensnares the mind and replaces the individual with a the will of a collective which seeks to preserve and parasitically reproduce its dogma using its host.
He’s quoting Bart Ehrman on Apolonius of Tyana - I’m skeptical of this account of him, I seem to remember there’s nothing to back up Ehrman’s claims. Might be wrong of course
@@Draezeth except the people who he doesn’t reach out to. The people who die atheists. Then he can torture them for eternity and delight in the smell of their burning flesh. For it is pleasing to our god who is loving and merciful. 👼🏻💩🧠🤡🙏🏼
I don't think Shermer gave a single argument in the debate, mearly slogans and shallow analogies missing the point. It is not the case that we need extraordinary evidence for miracles. But rather we have to deal with the evidence WE HAVE. If the resurrection did't happen then we need to have an explanation to the historically well established facts of the burial of Jesus, the empty tomb, postmortem appereances and the original diciples belief that Jesus was risen. It is also true that atheists believe the most extraordinary things one can imagine on origins, without any evidence at all. The comments below indicate peoples state of mind, contain funny slogans and expressions of disbelief, nothing more. Besides nobody is arguing that Jesus rose NATURALLY from the dead, but that God lifted Jesus from the dead. The analogies Shermer shared are broad generalizations which collapse immediately when we do a detailed scrutiny on them.
@@fekinel The Jesus-tradition existed before the new testaments letters and the gospels were written. But lets put that aside for a while and follow your logic to see what follows. Everything that has ever been written in a book is written by people, so why would you believe anything that has been written by man?
@@TheSpaniard-5337 I accept what can be demonstrated with evidence..not just what people write in story books..the bible is just another claim like the Koran, the book of mormon, the holy piby etc etc...just superstitious claims with no evidence
@@fekinel Well that is your opinion. Do you have evidence to prove your point? Maybe an alternative narrative that explains the four historically verified facts I presented?
Do we have any evidence that an apostle like, say, Peter was actually martyred for his beliefs and also that his life could have been saved by renouncing his testimony of the miracles of Jesus?
Yes, Lol you couldn't have picked a worse example to make your case. So here is what I need to know. if I give you the evidence what difference will it make to you?
@@seans5289 _" if I were to find sufficiently compelling evidence for the resurrection, I would happily accept the claim. I would also be very grateful"_ Oh, why does it have to be compelling, why not just evidence. let's go further let's say a small amount of evidence. I need to give you some value, oh, let's say the amount of evidence you have that the girl you choose for your wife will make the best wife and mother.
Sarah Clark: it seems I’m using words that get your defenses up. This isn’t my goal. I’d rather just talk about this stuff with an open mind so I can learn from you and, if need be, you can learn from me. I used the word “compelling” because, as you’ve pointed out, and as we’re discussing elsewhere: *to me,* claims like that an entity created the universe or that Buddha reached nirvana or that Jesus died for my sins or any other claim that falls outside of my every day experience should require evidence that could convince me such an event, person, etc. represented reality. And I wouldn’t equate the amount of evidence with the strength of the evidence. So, I’d be happy to receive a little evidence, as long as it can convince me to believe the truth.
@@seans5289 _"it seems I’m using words that get your defences up. This isn’t my goal. "_ Seriously I don’t care what you claim your goal is I will respond as I see fit. Do not take offence take it as me being as honest as I can be. _"I’d rather just talk about this stuff with an open mind so I can learn from you and, if need be, you can learn from me. "_ It’s not wise to not be honest with me. _"I used the word “compelling” because, as you’ve pointed out, and as we’re discussing elsewhere: to me, claims like that an entity created the universe or that Buddha reached nirvana or that Jesus died for my sins or any other claim that falls outside of my every day experience should require evidence that could convince me such an event, person, etc. represented reality. "_ Well, from a biblical perspective I have no reason whatsoever to believe you can be convinced. I am told you are dead to the things of God. its God who does the awakening not me. I am aware you are a serial questioner of the godly having had much time spent on you. it could be said it's your hobby. However, if what you tell me is true then your way forward is as follows. 1. Go to your room. 2. Kneel by your bed. 3. Pray that God will have mercy on you. 4. Ask Jesus to remove the scales from your eyes and doubt from your mind. 5. Read Johns gospel daily. 6. Pray daily. 7. Find a church that can teach you scriptures. 8. As you start to grow in the faith read the other gospels. 9. If you find you are not growing pray more. 10. If you find doing the above bizarre you could be what the bible calls a vessel made for destruction. If that is so, keep doing what you are doing if it gives you pleasure, as its all you have I’m afraid.
_"They're quite obviously not unbelievable because people believe they happened, but some people would believe anything."_ Seemingly you are proof of that.
@@saycheese6773 Read the first couple of verses of luke he says the stories have been handed down to them from the eyewitnesses. He never claimed to have met jesus. The earliest writings after Jesus' death were from Paul and he never met jesus either. Bottom line is we have no writings from anyone who ever met jesus. Anyone that has been to seminary knows this its not a secret or disputed among scholars.
I get the, "I don't know" position. But why must we talk in terms of absolute proof? Or even overwhelmingly in-your-face empirical evidence? What's wrong with simply making a provisional inference? What's wrong with saying, "I don't know for sure, but I can see how God would make sense?" Why is Shermer insisting on an all-or-nothing position with regard to evidence in favor of God's existence?
All you need to know is the sole reference source for the miracles in question is replete with scores of other fantastic (as in fantasy) tales. Why would the miracles be true when the rest is myth and allegory?
This kind of thinking comes from ignorance. The Gospels, whether you believe them or not, are not mythical. We evaluate the literary styles of ancient documents to determine if they're historical narrative or myth. People have this uninformed idea that they can arbitrarily refer to something they find to be unbelievable as mythical. "If it sounds silly to me it's a myth!" This is why a lot of great, atheist, philosophical minds are abandoning the new atheist movement. The movement is replete with people with poor thinking skills or no critical thinking skills.
@@drew2fast489 So, what exactly is the device which allows you to separate truth from mythology in literature? Schliemann did eventually find the ruins of Troy by reading Homer. Are we supposed to believe that Circe had the ability to change men into animals on that basis?
@@Simon.the.Likeable The literary style. "Once upon a time" "Long ago in a land far away" Those are examples of something mythical. The Gospels are thorough, accurate history, accounting for people, places, rulers and things done and said. To answer your question: because something is an historical account doesn't make it true. That's a different topic. But, you need to learn the difference between history and myth. Calling something a myth because you can't/won't believe it doesn't make it myth. It makes you guilty of arguing from personal incredulity.
@@drew2fast489 "As it was written in the prophets, Behold..." "There was in the days of Herod, the King of Judea..." "In the beginning was the Word..." Seems to be some sort of thread there. Maybe "Once upon a time in a land far away" could be drawing on an existing template and not the other way round. The Gospels and Acts are set in an historical context and the cast of characters are based on real people. However, the plot (the census, slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, etc.) and supernatural claims (angels, the devil, miracles, etc.) have no method of direct independent verification outside the text in question.
@@Simon.the.Likeable The first century authors of the Gospels had absolutely nothing to gain by their claims but death and exile-and that's exactly what they got. The empty tomb narrative is best explained by Christ's resurrection. The multiple sightings afterward, the sudden explosive influence of Christianity-all best explained by the truth of it all. I'll also add the Shroud Of Turin. These aren't the reasons one believes, though.
as Peter said: "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty". Jesus also said for some even one rising from the dead will not be enough.
@@bretzajac7986 That is circular reasoning. How do we know Peter did not follow cleverly devised stories? The Bible says so. How do we know the Bible is true? The Bible says so . . . etc.
@@doctorwebman by comparing other sources to confirm his story. Atheist will do anything and believe any nonsense instead of just accepting the obvious.
@@bretzajac7986 You apparently don't know how to reason. The Bible is the CLAIM. Using the claim to prove the claim is false logic, circular reasoning. How can you not understand that? If I wrote a claim where I was visited by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and then wrote in the story that everything I say is true, does that mean it's all true? No. I have to support the story with things that are NOT found in the claim.
@@doctorwebman your ignorance on history is only surpassed by your ignorance on Christianity. the bible claims 1800+ prophesies and many written (we have the ancient text) centuries before the events. This is observable, testable and verifiable and unique to only the bible and no other religions. Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-dated as being prior to the events foretold. Paul and Daniel pre-dated 3+ centuries before their prophesies of the Image, Man of Sin and Little Horn are observable, testable and verifiable and unique to only the bible and no other religions. you really do not understand the definition of history or historical documents do you? Well here it is: "a record or narrative description of past events". you just are biased and do not accept the bible but i assume you accept secular historical documents? seems quite hypocritical and shallow.
Magic is a nonsense word, a placeholder word when someone can't understand the mechanism through which something happens. People say telekinetic ability's are magic but if we confirmed they existed and went on too fully explain and understand the mechanism through which they worked people would stop calling them magic but how they worked would have never changed they wouldn't have changed from being done by magic to now being done through some other means it's just that people would now understand enough about them that they stop calling it magic. There is an explanation/mechanism through which Jesus performed miracles, it's god, basically the idea being put forth is that an intelligence of some kind created the universe and is able and willing to perform these acts on his behalf the other beings in this universe not having seen these acts before are stunned by them and some label them magic but magic is not what performed these acts because magic is not a being, it can't do anything, it isn't even a process through which things are done, it is a human created category for mysteries with no obvious causal mechanism to rest until they are better understood. No one is saying Magic did it cause it isn't even a thing they are saying god is a thing and he did it.
@@Mr.Goodkat I agree with your explanation, but I too see that you've appealed to more magic. The phenomenon of God is not fully understood. Telekinesis, if proven real, wouldn't be magic anymore - so God, if proven real, would not be magic anymore.
@@NathanAMeyers Whether Telekinesis is proven real or not isn't relevant because it still wouldn't be magic, magic is not a thing, it's a human created category saying something is caused by magic and then later discovering the mechanism and saying "oh it's not magic anymore" it never was, it was always that undiscovered mechanism magic is not a thing if god exists and is parting seas and raising the dead it still isn't a thing, it's a linguistic creation when we created the sound/word magic we thereby created a category in our minds and it doesn't correspond to ANYTHING outside our minds, it's a meaningless word.
@@whatwecalllife7034 How? there isn't anything to explain because the word magic is gibberish, it's not only that I don't consider magic a thing I don't even consider it a valid word it's a sound with no meaning to me not a category I use. There's two category's to me things we do understand and things we don't, if someone says to me is anything in either magic I ask what does that mean?
There is a core deception behind this type of apologetic: that the gospel authors were eyewitness accounts. The majority of scholarship disagrees with this position and actually present good evidence that Mark was written first, decades after the events, that Luke and Matthew followed, expanded on the accounts while also containing massive amounts of texts taken directly from Mark, and then followed by John who presents the most magical version of Jesus.
@@redbridgestreetepistemolog6088 You mean no eye-witnesses still alive today? Well, of course not. If you mean there were no eyewitnesses at the time, you might want to read Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Bauckham for a scholarly take on the issue.
At 1:11:45, when Luuk asked Michael if he would be happy to know the big men coming at him in an alley were themselves coming from a bible study. My answer would a big fat "NO". Why? Because these men might have thought Michael was gay, of another belief system, of another Christian branch that they consider heretical, or a host of things for which their biblical study might have admonished them to take very nasty action against the alleged sinner. However, if the men were of the Jain religion (Jainism) that advocates absolutely no harm to ANY living being, then my mind would be at rest knowing these men would care about someone else's life in the here and now. So, Luuk, NO!! Is the answer
For more debates and bonus content sign up www.premier.org.uk/unbelievablenewsletter
I find Michael Shermer to be an extremely pleasant and good guy. He is willing to talk to people on both sides of the aisles and keeps a pretty darn good balance between scepticism and open-mindedness. Not many guys are able to do it as good as he does it. Kudos Michael!
And then I woke up and found myself on youtube threads.
@@sarahclark5447 then go back to sleep because you didn't add anything with your comment
@@winstonsmiththx1138 Hmm, it seems I added you, however, if you see yourself as nothing, I can go with that.
Watch his debate with Graham Hancock on Rogan and you'll realize how scummy of a person he is.
@Mel Dummar My purpose in the world is to bring a smile, My success rate is low amongst youtube atheists. However, even my lack of success brings a smile to some, therefore, I guess the purpose of a youtube atheist is to say dumb things which I may use to bring smiles.
“Once beliefs are formed, the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, which adds an emotional boost of further in the beliefs and thereby accelerates the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive feedback loop of belief...M. Shermer - Why People Believe
the subconscious mind to be exact
A plane crash . One person walks away unhurt a miracle But not for the rest ????
Luuk's argument rests almost entirely on the idea that "these people REALLY believed in this." But this has no bearing at all on whether or not the beliefs are based on something that is true. It's an immediate and complete fail as a logical argument.
On the other hand Shermer based his argument on how likely an event is to happen. But I think he would agree that miracles by definition are not possible naturally, so talking about the probability is illogical as be definition as it should be 0. (Human limbs can't grow back so he gave that as example, but never finish that thought and concluded that it was because it has a 0 probability of happening that he would except it.)
Though I wouldn't say the Bible meets the standard to be taken as historical facts. I will say that most history is based on what people believed happened then hopefully we get to double check with archeology. So saying that what they believed is not relevant would make history impossible to do. Though I would agree that more then one type of evidence is needed.
Were Jesus' miracles believable?
His family didn't think so:
21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses." (Mk. 3:21 NAU)
5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him (Jn. 7:5 NAU)
If even his own family didn't find his miracles very credible, I could hardly be unreasonable to infer that Jesus was nothing more than a first-century Benny Hinn. Apparently, his ability to convince thousands of people that he did a miracle, implies audience gullibility before it implies the miracles were genuinely supernatural.
Thankyou
Luuke doesn't argue. He gives a sermon. Devoid of evidence and hard to listen to.
Seems like a canned comment that you would trot out whatever he says.
Luuk and Michael did clearly presented their arguments. The moderator, Justin, was fair and directed the conversation in the right direction. Great job everyone!
Luuk didn't present anything other than, the bible says it happened so it happened. That isn't any argument.
I'm in Sequim Wa. and didn't even know this event took place until Michael mentioned it today on his UA-cam Skeptic channel.
Miracles are a true and real phenomenon!
Miracles are when religious people take a coincidence as a hit while ignoring the overwhelming misses. Backing up their "miracle" claims with arguments from ignorance fallacies. "I don't know how something could have occurred, therefore, I invoke my particular brand of an imaginary friend as an answer."
This is miracles at work...
What you're saying is something a lot of people certainly do with prayer like someone who prays for a job going into an interview and then gives god credit when they get the job ignoring all the previous interviews that were failures but they never declare it a miracle (maybe only as a figure of speech same way an atheist might) only you have done that, it's confirmation bias.
The word Miracle is more often attributed by religious people to apparitions, people surviving life threatening injuries, premonitions that come true saving lives and things of that nature.
@Captain 7 Sure, it is, if it weren't you have tried to rebut what I stated. Instead simply resorted to an ad hominem rather than addressing what was stated.
@@agnosticatheist7529 Your comment was flawed though.
@Cleo Fierro . I decree it is the religious who are fucking imbeciles !
we are a race that is here purely because of the number of coincidences is astronomical, and i never tire of believers saying "you hear this all the time, god saved this life) if it happens all the time, not so much miraculous.
I am fascinated by how many assertions Luuk makes without any reference to evidence.
avcostello1 as if Christianity is the first and last suicide-cult...
avcostello1 suicide by cop is still suicide.
@@MarcusW8 no such thing as suicide by cop. We actually have a name for that kind of stuff and its called police brutality
@@crimsonalpha4578 how wrong you are...
@avcostello1 "persistent claim for the reason for their deaths was their belief in Jesus being the Son of God who rose from the dead"
You are saying that since these people may have believed Jesus 'Appeared' to them as an apparition or materially then It must be true It was an objective fact People have risen from being dead .
Even If there were killed for claiming this was True How does that establish it was true.
Its like saying David Koresh was God because many dozens of his followers choose to stay with him and be burned alive , While according to the Gospel accounts The disciples who were in a position to know fled Jerusalem when Jesus was captured .
Why are Christians incapable of realizing they use circular reasoning every time they refer to the Bible as evidence for Jesus's miracles?
i think the channel name covers it quite well..... unbelievable.
As Dan Barker has stated, “Christians should get their act together first before they try to convince atheists.”
That quote is nonsense. Even if the roles were switched it would still be complete nonsense.
@@webslinger527 Explain why its nonsense.
@@dmc3079 Because Dan Barker is a laughingstock. He believes in Jesus methisism which has been debunked by scholars and goes against the near unanimous scholarly opinion of the majority of scholars. Also Christians should get their act together first what does that even mean. It’s just nonsense like everything else he says.
@@webslinger527 "Also Christians should get their act together first what does that even mean" - Good question for Dan. But my take on it is that its difficult to convince atheists about christiaity being true when there is so many different sects of christianity with different views about the same story. How does one determine which version is the right one?
@@dmc3079 It’s not hard to determine which sect of Christianity is true if you just do your research. Catholicism isn’t the way because you pray to Saints which goes against multiple things that Jesus stated. Jehovah witnesses take the Bible literally which is not how the Bible was made it was made with a lot of theological metaphorical meaning. Here’s an example Moses left Egypt at 40 he was with the Midianites for 40 years and he was in the desert for 40 years these are theological numbers. Unless you believe that I person who is almost 120 climb a mountain to get Stone Commandments. Mormons Have been disproven countless times and their claims have been debunked by scientists when they say that Israelites were Native Americans and they’re so easy to debunk that even a South Park episode was able to do so. There’s more to it but that’s just a basic way of looking at it.
Great debate. Would have loved to see Richard Carrier or Bob Price do this, as they have more biblical knowledge. Either way Justin Brierley is the best. He seems so fair to both sides. Love that dude.
Well price was destroyed by bart ehrman and carrier let his emotions get the better of.him in his debate with ehrman on ehrman's bloy.
It is hard to see how those early followers could have been fooled. Good point Luuk about people dying for something they were told vs something they experienced (102:40).
Kinda naive though isn’t it
@@roarblast7332 What exactly?
I just don't think we can know what they experienced.
@@sendtoanthony We can read what they wrote.
Are you serious?
SHERMER IS RIGHT ! SCIENCE, LOGIC, REASON
AND CRITICAL THINKING
CHALLENGING THE CLAIMS, BELIEFS AND SUPERSTITIONS THAT
SO MANY OF WE HUMANS
ACCEPT WITHOUT
QUESTION !
What a naive reading of the ancient sources by Luuk V. This is what happens when faith informs your "scholarship". Truly baffling that this is tolerated at the PhD level.
I am a Christian, with a PhD, and unfortunately, I must agree with you :). Shermer gave a well staged :) logical rhetorically powerful speech.
Luuk should have done far better. The visual aids with Pinokio dragged his performance even lower. I am afraid he does not understand the issue, underestimates his opponent and is not skeptical enough to stand up to the task. I am disappointed.
I’ll sum up this Luuk dude:
The Bible described that this one thing happened, and some other things too...RiGhT?
I’m not a liar and I’m not a fool.
46:00
“They wouldn’t use capital punishment for minor magic.”
“They knew sorcery implied supernatural.”
No they hung him for sorcery and ENTICING Israel.
No, they called it sorcery because that word effectively evoked fear in the people to avoid and ignore Jesus because he was going against the status quo of traditional Jewish narratives and thus putting the power structure at risk.
He was a charismatic cult leader who was trying to ENTICE people into his way of thinking.
This guy is intellectually dishonest. He’s making assumptions about what the leaders believed in order to push his agenda.
What laws of nature exactly do the miracles of Jesus break? Dr. Dallas Willard asked this question many times and never got a straight answer.
Everytime Luuk says "Right?" (which is all the time) it reminds me of South Park's Mr. Mackey saying "Mmm...K?"
@perpetual eye Oh yeah, right. Oops. 😊 Changed it.
What apologist Vandeweghe, like Turek, Geisler, Craig and others, never gets around to, is whether after the passing of 2,000 years, it is today's Christian, not the skeptic, who has the burden of proof to show that anything in the NT "applies to us today".
It’s disingenuous to assume those who don’t accept the miracle claims believe the NT authors or early Christians were intentionally lying or misleading. Sophomoric at best.
Gospel authors never claim to be eyewitnesses, and scholarly consensus is the books were anonymously written, with the names we know the as attached at a later date. This is not a debate, no evidence is being presented, simply an appeal to emotion.
As the man said [ In religion FAITH is a virtue In science FAITH is a vice ] From a primate
Starts at 2:15
There is only one source for Jesus. The gospel writers copied each other with embellishment. Paul wrote about his hallucinations.
Why do apologists love to use things out of context so much? He brings up the Sanhedrin text without mentioning the fact that it's unclear first of all who the 'Yesu' in the passage is as it was a very common name and if you want to claim it's your specific Jesus, then you have to deal with the fact that it states the trial went on for 40 days and that Yesu was stoned before being hung and it doesn't mention crucifixion. But hey if misinforming brings people to God then I guess it's permissible.
why do you call him Yesu? is it hard to you call him Jesus instead? since is hard to you to call Him ישוע
@@ivanhuertas5307 dingbat, he's literally quoting the passage brought up in the debate. That's why he's using that name.
Lying for Jesus.
lol. All you gotta do is get a little educated and you see that christian apologists lie constantly.
Oh dear. Shermer's basis is scientific method. Luuk likes comfy stories. Put this boy to bed.
I will come there and slap you in your mouth
Blood Eagle is a worse than crucifixion... imagine if they did that. Would people be wearing eagles instead of crosses? 🤔
The thing that gets me is, why in the heck doesn't God/Jesus show some real miracles every couple of thousand years or so? I'd love to see it!
Because he doesn’t exist?
@joeturner9219 Sort of. It’s my opinion in the same way Bigfoot doesn’t exist is…
I don't believe anyone doubts that the apostles really believed in whatever they believed. That however, doesn't make whatever they believed true though. I don't understand why christians still bring that up.
Why do atheist make the ridiculous rule we cannot use the bible as historical accounts? History is the recording of past events but the wimpy atheist know if they admit the bible in as accounts of what people saw (Peter: "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty") they have to admit they are morons and missed the boat on God and to be blunt are quite stupid.
@@bretzajac7986 hahahahahhahahahhahahha You have got to be kidding mate !
@Trolltician Says the imbecile that believes in fairy tales :):):)
As much as I enjoy Shermer, this debate would have been more productive with Dr. Richard Carrier.
And more nuclear. Luuk would have been a glowing crater.
I have seen miracles that equal those found in scripture.
But people would tell me that I am just mistaken, delusional, or that they can be explained by natural process.
So the debate is moot.
Is it not possible that your perceptions can be mistaken? Why do you think it is more likely that some magical thing(s) happened than you simply had an error in judgement or perception?
@@whatwecalllife7034 Real. factual. and with no naturalistic explination.
@@bungalobill7941 Your answer doesnt address the 2 questions I asked
Bungalo Bill and you ruled out all naturalistic explanations how exactly?
Can I please know what they are? I won't mock, I'm just fascinated by this stuff.
It amazes me how and why people are impressed by unverifiable anecdotes, claims, myths and legends from a 2000 year old compendium of bronze age middle eastern fairy tales.
Do you have a refutation for these beliefs?
Haha! Michael and Luuk has the exactly same speaking voice...
Lol. I was thinking the same.
They do? I don’t hear it. One sounds like kip from Napoleon dynamite and the other sounds like a regular guy.
@@youtubemoderationtaskforce5583 Michael and Luuk's voices are very similar. I think your vision is biasing your ears. He does LOOK similar to Kip from napoleon dynamite, but sounds nothing like him. Kip's voice is higher pitched and is purposely effeminate by resonating and accenting his S's. Michael and Luuk both speak with similar pitch and timbre. They both lean into consonants in a similar way.
@@cwjalexx
I just listened again. I didn’t use my vision this time. Alright, on a scale from one to ten, and Kip from Napoleon dynamite is 10, I would say Luuk is like an 8 and Michael is a 4. So Michael is 6 notches away from kip and luuk is only 2. And luuk and Michael are still 4 notches away from each other.
Side note: Some deep voiced black guy would be 1 on the scale.
@@youtubemoderationtaskforce5583 I don't know what your scale means. Are you referring to pitch? timbre? inflection? pronunciation?
Kip's voice is so different to my ear. He's purposely trying to sound effeminate with his emphasis on the letter "S". It's been shown in studies that our perception of how "S" is pronounced heavily influences what gender we think we are hearing. He also speaks with higher pitch. Michael and Luuk are speaking with like only 10 hz of difference in frequency.
Let me see if I understand this, Jesus miracles are improbable or impossible? The latter? Why, exactly?
1:47:55 Luuk, with all of his biblical degrees, shows us his lack of critical thinking skills.
... including equating his faith in the dentist's mysterious "tooth filling capabilities" with Jesus' plethora of capabilities (Universe making / loaf and fish multiplication)
and... I can verify if my dentist uses the correct procedure. By patients I know if theyr fillings are correctly done, by asking him to show me, asking which collega he wen't to, showing the diplomas.
Try that with God, I know people that trust him but still died at early age in a car accident, i know people that trust him doing miracles but they can't show me how he did it. (you have to have faith...) and sure a 2000y old book isn't a solely trustworthy reference or 'diploma'
You cannot work out the odds of a miracle happening. There is zero chance. That's what makes it a miracle.
you can work out the odds that miracles happen all the time though, which is what you would know if you paid attention to what was said.
@@HarryNicNicholas If you can work out the odds then it likely isn't a miracle but rather just credited as a miracle. I think that is more what Shermer's argument proves. But his example of a human limb growing back would convince him, backs up Vince's statement above.
Maybe double check before you accuse others of not paying attention....
@@viperstriker4728 He was talking about what people sometimes take as miracles. Miracles that defy natural laws just dont exist which is something of a miracle in itself.
@@skyteus Been a while since I watched this but pretty sure at least half of Jesus's miraculous would have had to broke the natural laws to be true. That's the debate, and to change it to your statement would be starting on the atheist side.
If the evidence for miracles was convincing, these debates would not be happening.
That's absurd reasoning.
@@Soaptoaster . If any "miracle" can be shown to be true there would be no argument.
@@dennisheffy3220 What would have to be true for you to say there would be no argument?
@@RichLuciano1 . For something to be true, it must be accurate, verifiable, correct and be in accordance with reality.
@@dennisheffy3220 it looks like you are giving words synonymous with the word true. The question being asked of you is:
What has to be true in order for you to say miracles are inarguable?
Irrespective of the content of their respective arguments, many UA-cam should take the spirit and nature of the debate to heart. And interestingly (at least to me), it reflects in the comments.
Wow.......so there were believers many years ago who died for their faith........so what. Doesn’t mean they saw a resurrection or a Jesus.....just that they believed like every Christian since. Also, they only mention the Christians who died and not the many believers who recanted. Same as the mormons don’t really mention all the witnesses who later recanted.
when my mum was still alive and suffering the terminal cancer, i wanted to swap places with her for her to get better. but it wasnt to be. that's what the jesus or other diety or ideology is, a false hope in miracles, despite reality. i much prefer reality than making up stuff like a child and fear driven to welcome ignorance as a sign of goodness or strength.
funny how a liar makes a big point of being able to tell liars from truth speakers. we all lie a little, every day. are we liars? are we sinners? if you already bought into the ideas, then you have serious considerations. when you realize dichotomies rarely exist, human nature is more complex that liars or believers, you will be free of this fake idea of sin...which rather than a (fake) god enduring, becomes your mind jail unable to reach reality.
Captain 7 : i wasnt born speaking english but, it's "you're". anyway, just asserting a hidden super good and super bad diety is an argument from ignorance, i.e. stating things without any evidence. so you're merely asserting stuff and pretending you're saying something of substance. it's just life..and death. i didnt assume i was special. what does that have to do with dealing with anything? i know each day is a bonus.
you feel free to comment on someone's loss with your absurd nothings. i dont need any fake reverence. on the other hand, silly comments arent particularly called for.
there is no "wrong idea about god", as we each have a personal take on this myth of an idea.
@Trolltician . 'Retards' are the religious, including Christians .
Your experience has given you the perspective that Christianity is nothing but a false hope in miracles. At its core, however, you won't find any of that. Never in the Bible are believers instructed to pray or wait for miracles to happen. Rather, we're told to endure, because life *will* suck. Your view of Christianity is based on false premises.
@@Draezeth and your view of christianity is based on lies and false information
@@winstonsmiththx1138 My view of Christianity is based on the Bible.
Ummm one little problem with Vandeweghe saying what Peter saw Jesus do... he never MET Jesus. No one who wrote about Jesus met the guy, it's all hearsay!
These beliefs are impressive in the 21st century. You would think these beliefs are impossible, but with Luuk’s opening, it seems humans can believe anything.
Case in point you moronic atheist believe a rat like land animal ate insects from a lake and evolved in to whales...lol...Why do atheist make the ridiculous rule we cannot use the bible as historical accounts? History is the recording of past events but the wimpy atheist know if they admit the bible in as accounts of what people saw (Peter: "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty") they have to admit they are morons and missed the boat on God and to be blunt are quite stupid.
_"These beliefs are impressive in the 21st century. You would think these beliefs are impossible, but with Luuk’s opening, it seems humans can believe anything.
"_
Yes as you are evidence of.
@@sarahclark5447 to quote Jesus: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away". Get on board Sarah before its too late.
Sarah Clark “evidence of”? Which belief of mine are you referring to? The belief of people believing anything?
Bret Zajac It is obvious that you need to read up on evolution, so i will completely ignore that part of the comment. Even if the bible is an accurate account of what people saw (although it is written decades later and even edited, as well as not even second hand reports) it still wouldn’t warrant belief in the impossible [resurrection]. Just because i tell you something, doesn’t mean its true. This should be obvious. This is why there is a clear distinction between science and religion. The standards for evidence in science are absurdly high, to start they need to pass 95% accuracy in statistics (significance test). To believe something impossible happened because, YOU WERE TOLD. Is foolish
My personal opinion about Jesus is that "a con man would cure individual people, a deity would eradicate all disease."
Your diety would eradicate all disease I suppose.
@@croakingfrog3173 Hard to say. However, the god who created the universe with just a few words could conceivably do so.
@@croakingfrog3173 Well, if a deity was omnibenevolent, like the Christians claim their Abrahamic god is, then he WOULD eradicate disease and evil, etc. But since that hasn't happened, it logically follows to conclude that that god ethier exists but is apathetic to our hardships, he exists but is powerless to stop evil, he exists and he IS evil, or he simply does not exist at all. Ethier way, fuck that god if he created hell to torture people in forever. What a loser.
There may have been eyewitnesses, but none of them wrote about the experience.
All we have are tales of their experiences by third parties who were not eyewitnesses themselves.
Anonymous stories based on anonymous storytelling of a magic man who broke every jewish law and wasn't slain on the spot like everyone before them... But no one bothered to mention the guy who fed 5k people. BS, never have 5k people been anywhere and no one writes about a hyper magic that produced food for everyone. The child whos food was turned into a feast, where is he?
Ned Flanders with contact lenses
I’m sorry, but yet again hearing a lot of fallacies and assumptions in order to save the Jesus story over and over again is kind of boring!
Name one, please.
Facts the christian arguement is weak
1. Disciples suffered and died for this
A. prove they died for this, prove this is even a true story
@@kmtgoddess7793 The book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict lays out many proofs. It is worth a read.
@@jeffcarr6853 does it explain why yaweh didnt destory rome
@@kmtgoddess7793 I will get back to you on that. My current opinion about that is; Yahweh did not need to destroy the Roman Empire as he knew that mankind would do the job.
The Bible is no more important than any book written by humans!
If god exists he should show himself...
You can’t debate a miracle you can only debate the assertion that something strange happened.
Strange, rare or unexplainable.
@@MrMattSax A bit like and imaginary god.
If the miracles of Jesus had really occurred, then they would still be accompanying the minisitry of todays's followers of Jesus. We should expect to have this consistency, for as John 14:12 says:
"Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." The absence of those miracle demonstrates that we can falsify the Gospel, for the prophecy is false.
Biblical exegetes have seen that passage as pertaining to the apostles and therefore fulfilled. The other claim that a miracle should could continue to happen today in the same or greater degree and in the same or greater frequency by definition makes a miracle the norm and not a miracle.
@@andys3035, there is no textual evidence to support your claim that Jesus only had his apostles in mind. On the contrary, exegesis of the NT text indicates that Jesus applies his teachings to all his followers. For example, visions and prophecies are supposed to continue to the end times. This is why evangelical churches claim that they have a miraculous healing ministry, through prayer and the laying on of hands, as well as the gift of prophecy, and these signs are not suposed to disappear, e.g. Acts 2:17: " 'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams." Miracles are supposed to accompanyJesus' followers. This would not contradict the definition of miracle, which is an event attributable to divine intervention, not explicable through natural or scientific means.
As for getting prophecy right, Christians probably have the worst track record, even arguably beaten by pagan Nostradamus! Just do a search on Christian prophecies throughout the ages! Jesus himself erroneously prophesied the end of the Age and the coming of God's kingdoms "while some standing here" are stil alive, and in another Gospel, within the lifetime of the generation of his listeners. With hindsight, we can see that Jesus mis-read thei signs of his times, and got it wrong. That's why you're still waiting for the Second Advent, even after the passage of some 2,000 years!
Note also Mark 16:18: "They will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
Christians are not particularly favoured - they succomb to disease and harm just like everybody else. There is nothing special about Christians. Amputees or people with withered arms don't have their limbs restored through prayer.
@@psandbergnz
This is very simple indeed, even an atheist can get there. The gifts, healing etc were not for all times the bible made that clear. they ceased after Acts if you check the 4 Prison Epistles and the 3 Pastoral Epistles you will see they have disappeared. note too that in What Paul could do in Acts 28, he could no longer do in Philippians, or in 1 and 2 Timothy. Taking one passage out of context is the indication you are communicating with atheists. poor things lol.
@@sarahclark5447 , I showed from Acts 2:17 ("in the last days..") you are wrong that the gifts were supposed to cease. The fact that they no longer operate makes it implausible that they EVER operated, even with Jesus himself. Mark 16:17-18 says that "WHOEVER" believes and is baptised will have signs accompanying them, such as driving out demons and not succombing to lethal poison and snakes. So it is a prophecy not limited to the apostles or time. It is clearly a failed prophecy, since now, with 2,000 years of hindsight behind us, we know that Christians have no special protection from poison or snakes or anything else.
The epistles of Paul and the Pastoral epistles do NOT say that the gifts had disappeared. Note that the epistles were written BEFORE the book of Acts was, so you clearly don't understand much about the Bible! Your argument that "what Paul could do in Acts 28 he could no longer do in Philippians or in Timothy" MAKES NO SENSE! Acts was around 80 AD (just after Luke), whereas the epistles were written around the 40s or 50s AD.
Note also that the four Gospels are ANONYMOUS - nobody has a clue who the authors of any of them are - so you have no basis for insisting that they are reliable writings. The Gosp[els are just hearsay from unkwnown writers. They are not written by eyewitnesses (all written in the 3rd person), and don't claim to be.
@UCu9rxwZN9igTmBJijYF8rJA
Well, Bret, the reason is very simple, it's the same reason they try to redefine atheism as 'don't ask me anything' and I want to label you, but don't label me. As regards the bible that is simple too they do not want evidence, where did you get that idea?
MS seems to have a limited reading of the NT if he says that only one person is brought back to life. Lazarus was raised after 3 days in a tomb presaging Jesus, who also revived Jairus daughter from seeming death - though Jesus says she was merely sleeping. The Acts of the Apostles include examples of the the disciples raising the dead.
How about Jesus didn't exist,anyone thought of that?
Yes, Richard Carrier
I consider Luuk Vandeweghe poor in this debate. Although the issue of miracles is more general than only the miracles of Jesus and this was the topic, I can't take seriously any approach that doesn't explain why ALL others people miracles are fake and only "mine" are real. Or the believer deals with that or we have doors fully opened to some sort of relativism (which no apologist is opened to accept). As Shermer said we have no record of people returning from death, and if someone came to us saying that another person really did, even if this messenger was able to kill and die for it, we wouldn't buy it, because is much more plausible that something is missing and the resurrection is not the best explanation. In the same sense that if open your fridge and your icecream is missing, even if your house was locked and you live alone etc., nobody would suppose that your icecream ascended to heavens in glory. Even if I can't explain how it disappeared, only a fool would go for the supernatural explanation. I'm not anti-religious and I don't think religion is poison and all this BS from new atheists and I'm all for Shermer's point about the Fatima miracles: any protestant has the burden to prove all catholic miracles are fake and if he can't, to respond why isn't he a catholic. And all the same or to other people religions and miracles.
Trolltician and if catholic miracles are real than why are you not catholic?
A well-prepared, thoughtful debate. I find Luuk's response researched and rational. There is a lot of food for thought here!
by definition he can't be rational, everything he has is based on a god myth.
i bet you find it really easy to dismiss the islamic miracles.
god: "i love you, you will love me, or, i will burn you alive every day for eternity" sounds like a distant relative of hannibal lector.
tell me, do you personally think you are going to heaven, or hell, i'd like to hear your reasons.
@@HarryNicNicholas Good questions.... I wish you would have received a response especially regarding Islamic miracles etc
Most of what Luuk is stating here has been debunked several times before by now. He’s not really funding his claims with valid evidence. Also : check out some historians like Richard Carrier or even Bart Ehrman, the last one even believes that Jesus is a historical figure.
What is highly ironic is where defenders of atheism or ‘no god’ groups proudly boast of authors to define ideas, for example, that their understanding of ‘miracles’ i.e. hume is correct to begin with bemusedly behave like christians with the bible - and trusting it as truth.
The major difference being the scientific philosophers relying on thousands upon thousand of written reference books and materials. Whereas theologians relying on only one non scientific reference book.
You clearly have failed to grasp what i am saying.
Why do atheists PRESUME the reasoning of these philosophers were 100% correct or even understood the nature of miracles as DEFINED by Christianity or jewish faith rather than they DEFINE miracles by their own terms.
You haven’t studied theology to say ppl of faith do no refer to non religeous texts. Have you even read?
I don't know of any scientific philosophers having held a 100% belief in reference materials. In fact, most scientific philosophers will stop at "I don't know" or "It can't be held as certain" when it comes to unanswered questions of the nature of reality or the physical world. Whereas theologians don't end at "I don't know" as a long studied conclusion, but begin at "I know for certain" as a starting point before rational investigation.
Michael shermer HAD blind faith hume understood miracles thats why he used Hume as the definition FOR explaining what a miracle IS. So your argument FAILED.
You use science and except everything science claims as truth therefore you are acting like believers with god.
@@gjeacocke
"Michael Shermer HAD blind faith Hume understood miracles"
Just to be clear, those are YOUR words of Michael Shermer's mindset and are a presumption of his standing on belief systems. Hume can be used as an example of reference not an end-all-be-all to the greater context of the nature of reality. You and I have our own personal perspectives on belief systems, but we cannot attribute or project our personal beliefs onto others personal beliefs. That is a dogmatism unto itself.
Debates between the followers of Apollonius and Jesus? Curious they don't appear in the NT.
There is no independent contemporary corroborating evidence for ANYthing Luuk Vandeweghe thinks he knows about Jesus or his life. (Referencing discussion at about 1:18 in the discussion section, as well as pretty much everything else he claims.)
That is simply not true. Luuk brought up atleast one and there are many other non-believer historians who reffer to Jesus and the christians.
Josephus lived in Jerusalem at the same time James the brother of Jesus was stoned to death. It caused such an uproar he recorded the stoning in his writings. Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus' brother.
@@TheSpaniard-5337 "historians who reffer to Jesus and the christians."
Right but Referring to later Christians is not even the same as a historian who was a contemporary of Jesus writing he existed much less good reason to believe Jesus could have the acts attributed to him.
Why do atheist make the ridiculous rule we cannot use the bible as historical accounts? History is the recording of past events but the wimpy atheist know if they admit the bible in as accounts of what people saw (Peter: "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty") they have to admit they are morons and missed the boat on God and to be blunt are quite stupid.
@@bretzajac7986 The most important event in all of history ordained by the most powerful being in the universe is completely absent from the history books at the time they supposedly happened. Why is your god so incompetent?
The jews weren't convinced jesus was divine - this was after supposedly after seeing him control the weather, raising the dead, healing people, seeing *their* own prophecies being fulfilled. Jesus couldn't do magic tricks for Pilate & Caiaphas - the word this individual is "fraud"
So we are stupid because we give an all powerful, loving deity (if he/she existed) more credit than you do? I'm not worshiping any deity that's less moral and has less common sense than I do. Any deity that had to kill himself to save his creation from himself because a ribwoman ate magic fruit is a pretty pathetic god.
If I missed the boat to your baby killing god, that's a good thing.
How many of the Patients of Mother Theresa Survived Surly with someone like her Praying for you it would be a high number
Did Luuk claim that there’s not extraordinary evidence for evolution? Only in America, :(. Kids, pay attention in science class. Go to a secular college.
Hey I went to a catholic university and that's what lead me to question my beliefs.
@@eskoelmwood5936 The truth is more amazing that any story. Congrats on your questioning.
Here, more on our amazing history. To better illustrate life on Earth, extend out both your arms to your left and right. The Earth is to date at least 4.6 billion years old and that beginning is represented at the tips of your right middle finger. There’s evidence that single celled bacteria existed at your right wrist. Then life existed as such for another 3 billion years. Then at your left elbow we see the most basic of multi cellular life. Mammals didn’t show up until around the base knuckle of your left fingers. The human species only exists in the last millimeter of your left middle finger. Add to this, we probably wouldn't have risen to our status if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out by an asteroid 66 mya. Some design huh, it incredible, just not evidence of a god speaking things into existence.
@@zach2980 Blasphemy! God did it! Just kidding:) The ark experience in Kentucky has dinosaurs on Noah's ark! Fart sound.
@@seanjones2456 Blasphemy, a victimless crime? :) Do you think the Ark Encounter creates more believers or non believers? I predict the latter. Speaking of farts, one window on that ark woulda proved the quick demise of all life on that floating zoo. Ridiculous that grown people believe that story. I know 4 yr olds that call bullshit.
This was kinda hard to watch. Instead of debunking Hume and addressing mythologies directly, Luuk harped on Christian martyrdom for his rebuttal, didn't bring up C. S. Lewis until the end of his second rebuttal, and MICHAEL the one who brought up Jordan Peterson! *facepalm* Michael threw such an easy ball and Luuk missed it.
Heinrich Schliemann discovered the city of Troy based upon Homer's the illiad. So Luke pin pointing a known island is evidence of jesus. That must mean the story of Achilles is true, and therefore the mount Olympus is real.
Why do atheist make the ridiculous rule we cannot use the bible as historical accounts? History is the recording of past events but the wimpy atheist know if they admit the bible in as accounts of what people saw (Peter: "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty") they have to admit they are morons and missed the boat on God and to be blunt are quite stupid.
@@bretzajac7986 Because, that is circular reasoning, which is false logic. You can't prove anything using false logic.
@@doctorwebman you sound insane or uninformed. We have witness statements we can compare to observation. By your standards unless it happens in front of you its circular reasoning? What an ego you have. How would any legal case go forward if you are using eye witness testimony to "prove" a point? You as a lawyer would say "Hey we cant use it because its circular reasoning in that its his eye witness testimony but i don't like it". You sound like a little brat arguing with his mommy not to eat his vegetables.
@@bretzajac7986 Yes, sane people will seem insane to insane people.
You have zero eyewitness accounts. None of the gospels are eyewitness accounts, and there are no eyewitness accounts outside the Bible, either. You have nothing but hearsay. You can't use the hearsay to prove the hearsay is true. That is circular reasoning. Here is your circular reasoning:
The Bible says Jesus was resurrected. How do we know Jesus was resurrected? Because, the Bible says so.
@@doctorwebman and those speaking on subjects they have no clue about to those who do also seems insane.
If there was a Jesus, why didn't he save Luuk from drowning and dying. Cringeworthy and embarrassing 😱
One only has to look at the devotees of POTUS 45 to see that people do not always perceive things as they really occur.
And you can see the same or worse in his knee-jerk opponents, including those in the bureaucracy who had no business trying to sabotage a sitting president.
Luke does not state that he interviewed anyone. He compiled his gospel from previous writings. Including Mark.
It would be great if the Christian dude would stop preaching and actually debate.
It's fine to be skeptical. But it's also fine to believe in your experiences of the paranormal or supernatural even if "Shermers Science" says i don't know. He misses the mark on the precognitive dreaming too. Throwing numbers around about one specific dream. Those who consistently have precognitive dreams experience a pattern over time. They're not just one offs. But we need Shermer to balance things out. His Joe Rogan episode with Graham Hancock is an interesting view.
It’s a miracle some people believe in this deluded dark age superstitious rubbish.
@Master Ikem No you don't.
Have you looked around yourself how stupid people are? Imagine that stupidity but than with 2000 years of lies and culture backing it. Yeah.
1:12:50 Bob walks out onto the stage
Luke was 2 minutes into the narrative he was building a pity image trying to wake up our sorry for the Christians.. I was bored.. then he said this man healed people .. ahh just like the modern healers .. we got people burning themselves for Buddha or poison their children for a supposed prophet .. and this in modern time were those fools .. no they were fooled.. rest my case
27:30 Did Michael lift the food joke from Sam Harris, or did Sam lift it from Michael?
Debate content well-researched and well prepared. Delivery believable. Some doubt that miracles actually happen...oh...until they need one or their child or spouse just experienced one.
That my child would experience one doesn't make it true. And if a radical, highly emotional event made me experience one doesn't make it true either.
It's like the claim that religion brings people solace as argument for religion. Finding solace in untruth is no solace to me. There are enough times we lie to ourselves already to make ourselves feel better to add another one.
Many of those claimed miracles are actually natural events that are rare. Rarity does not equate to a contradiction of physics or biology.
Luuk offers no proof at all, but uses emotion to prime the crowd. not convinced by either of them.
1:35:00 - So god will give your dad $40,000 but he won’t heal an amputee?
Well, he could do neither, one or the other or both, it depends on what the purpose of the gift was for.
@@sarahclark5447 I prayed this morning that God would keep me safe on my commute to work, and he granted that prayer since I got to work safely. So, why did he grant that prayer but has never once granted an amputee's prayer to regrow their limb?
@@77megapixels53
I am pleased you felt your prayer was answered. Given you are having your prayers answered pray to God he will answer your question concerning the amputee.
When you have done so give it a week or so since you are not going to receive an audible answer since the answer is already at hand to you and it's going to take a few days for you to realise that such a post to me will not solicit a reply like you would receive from one of your dumb mates, as actually, I think you have the capacity to get there if your stupidity wasn't pandered to. if you cant I will point you to why that is.
So go to your room go on your knees and ask God to soften Sarah's heart so thee miserable fool you are will be tolerated by her.
If you are too proud to go on your knees to almighty God you have bigger problems than asking about the here and now.
If you want to continue debating that is fine by me, however, this will not end in the way you think it will so think hard before responding as the wise atheist would run away.
@@sarahclark5447 ok, just prayed to god about amputees. I'll wait a week and report back. BTW, what should I be on the lookout for for a reply since, you know, it won't be audible?
@@77megapixels53
The answer.
because someone may have used a certain word does not strengthen evidence
This guy is the worst Christian debater I've ever listened to.
Why do atheist make the ridiculous rule we cannot use the bible as historical accounts? History is the recording of past events but the wimpy atheist know if they admit the bible in as accounts of what people saw (Peter: "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty") they have to admit they are morons and missed the boat on God and to be blunt are quite stupid.
"Are the miracles of Jesus unbelievable?"
Short answer is YES, thanks for coming.
The thoughts of an atheist:-
_"Are the miracles of Jesus unbelievable?""_
_"
short answer is YES, thanks for coming."_
The actions of secular atheistic governments- the cause of the worst atrocities the world has ever known. more murdered in the 20th century than murdered in all other centuries combined.
Thanks for coming.
The reasoning of an atheist and a Christian-
Atheist: Are the miracles of Jesus unbelievable?" Yes
.
Christian: Are the miracles of Jesus unbelievable?" No.
Question. was the universe, coming into existence a miracle or an act of God. Give your evidence with your answer.
@@sarahclark5447
*The actions of secular atheistic governments- the cause of the worst atrocities the world has ever known. more murdered in the 20th century than murdered in all other centuries combined*
Sarah, you're an ignoramus. The atrocities of the 20th century were enacted by Totalitarian dictatorships, all of which suppressed anything considered to be a challenge to the core politic or ideology, that included religions. Ironically, the structure of these regimes was almost identical to a theocracy, where the leader adopted the role of a godhead. Not one SINGLE example of such atrocities was perpetrated in the name of atheism, but through the ideological 'principles' of Communism. Ironically, Hitler was a theist who appealed to almighty god on numerous occasions for his actions, you've evidently never read Mein Kampf have you!
When you have the slightest idea what you're talking about you can reply
Again, thanks for coming ;)
@@sarahclark5447
*Atheist: Are the miracles of Jesus unbelievable?" Yes
* Because there is zero objective evidence any such thing ever happened. Some iron age anonymous authors claiming otherwise is not remotely good evidence
*Christian: Are the miracles of Jesus unbelievable?" No*.
Because being a Christian involves indoctrination, credulity and gullibility.
*Question. was the universe, coming into existence a miracle or an act of God. Give your evidence with your answer*
Not only is this a false dichotomy, it's demonstrably false as the evidence for the Big Bang is exclusively natural.
@@HughJaxident67
_"Atheist: Are the miracles of Jesus unbelievable?" Yes
* Because there is zero objective evidence any such thing ever happened. Some iron age anonymous authors claiming otherwise is not remotely good evidence"_
Sadly for you, "Some iron age anonymous authors" have credibility you do not have, it's very sad that you have become such a low-value creature, but you can redeem yourself if you want since I really, really want to become an atheist. I'm prepared to bang my head against the wall repeatedly in order to meet the IQ requirement of 36. However, before I do so I would like evidence atheism is true. I understand you will redefine it not to mean a denial of a Gods existence, but I spoke to a card-carrying, atheist on the number 13 bus, he had the white lab coat, the homemade laminated badge, coloured in, and he almost stayed within the lines. it was definitely genuine since the badge said I love Dick Dawkins on it, and it was signed by the Dick himself, said that you guys get a signed photograph of the great man the Lord Jesus Christ oh, sorry I meant to say our lord Dick Dawkins, and two candles to put either side of the great man Dick Head of biology. now I need evidence that you have the lab coat and the laminated badge since the man on the number 13 bus said he had conclusive proof that atheism is true, otherwise, he would be an agnostic. I should tell you now I have the bar set to accept your evidence the same as you have set mine, so I reject any evidence whatsoever that atheism is true and correct but I am open minded and want your evidence so I can reject it.
That's the level of credibility you have.
Luuk keeps saying 'right?' as though everybody agrees with him. He should just make a point and not assume everyone agrees. It's patronizing.
Luuk doesn't impress me, just another off-the-shelf apologist, drawing straw men and appealing to faith.
Luke's arguments why the bible has to be true applies to every other religion too. Are they all true for the same reasons?
If Jesus in fact is God/Son, would anything be impossible?! The reason why he did miracles was to show who he was.
Oh I see. And then no more ‘miracles’ for 2,000 years right? Miracle claims are common in all religions but of course in the main Westerners only get exposed to the Christian ones.
If jesus existed at all... The whole plot of the book arcs toward a warrior king to save the jews... Once and for all from all the horrors theyve lived through, except even Israel now acknowledges they were never slaves in egypt which would kind of blow the plot completely out of the water for all the things jesus had to come back and fullfill. If you can even convince me the plot of the story makes sense then I'd be open to discuss the specfics of how we know for a fact that the jesus character in the bible never existed and to use the books own words to disprove it in the same way we disprove joseph smiths new christian sequel mormonism.
"would anything be impossible?!"
yes most theologians believe there are things that even a God couldnt do, mostly because they are or might be illogical.
Are you saying all things are actually possible if there is a god?
@@jdetres01 The ignorance in your comment is appalling. There are two portrayals of Messiah in the Old Testament: one as a lowly sufferer, and one as a glorious conqueror. Prior to the coming of Jesus, one theory was that there would be two separate messiahs. We now know that it simply refers to two comings of the same one, one of which happened, and one of which is still to come.
Israel also hasn't abandoned the Exodus story. Netanyahu certainly hasn't. And asking ethnic, rather than religious Jews is the wrong way to go. The evidence for the Exodus is staggering, people just got the dates all wrong. It's basically proven at this point, historians just need to arrive at a consensus on the matter.
lol pretty lame....
There is no such thing as the gospel of Mark as if Mark had written it. The papyrus fragments containing this gospel is said to be the gospel ACCORDING to Mark. Most scholars believe that it was written anonymously, and that the name of Mark was attached later to link it to an authoritative figure.The oldest one has been dated between AD 150 and 250. The current complete gospel is a compilation of all the fragments found.
So basically, Luuk is saying, god can never lose. have your cake and eat it to fallacy.
Indeed, "IF God created the Universe and he is outside of it, he can feed a new event into it." Where is the fallacy to this hypothetical statement?
Christianity’s Sophistry is airtight. It’s had millennia to refine its strategies. Like a Chinese finger trap that ensnares the mind and replaces the individual with a the will of a collective which seeks to preserve and parasitically reproduce its dogma using its host.
He’s quoting Bart Ehrman on Apolonius of Tyana - I’m skeptical of this account of him, I seem to remember there’s nothing to back up Ehrman’s claims. Might be wrong of course
And the "Latin words" joke is I suspect, borrowed for Sam Harris.
Mr. Luke is under tremendous pressure to explain the unexplainable. What an oxymoron!
1:32:13 So God paid Luuk's dad $40K to make him believe, but he used pain on his sick grandma, so she could become Christian through that experience.
God knows what works for different people.
@@Draezeth
Mafia too.
@@Draezeth except the people who he doesn’t reach out to. The people who die atheists. Then he can torture them for eternity and delight in the smell of their burning flesh. For it is pleasing to our god who is loving and merciful. 👼🏻💩🧠🤡🙏🏼
I don't think Shermer gave a single argument in the debate, mearly slogans and shallow analogies missing the point. It is not the case that we need extraordinary evidence for miracles. But rather we have to deal with the evidence WE HAVE. If the resurrection did't happen then we need to have an explanation to the historically well established facts of the burial of Jesus, the empty tomb, postmortem appereances and the original diciples belief that Jesus was risen. It is also true that atheists believe the most extraordinary things one can imagine on origins, without any evidence at all. The comments below indicate peoples state of mind, contain funny slogans and expressions of disbelief, nothing more. Besides nobody is arguing that Jesus rose NATURALLY from the dead, but that God lifted Jesus from the dead. The analogies Shermer shared are broad generalizations which collapse immediately when we do a detailed scrutiny on them.
It's a story, in a book written by people...why would you think it's real?
@@fekinel The Jesus-tradition existed before the new testaments letters and the gospels were written. But lets put that aside for a while and follow your logic to see what follows. Everything that has ever been written in a book is written by people, so why would you believe anything that has been written by man?
@@TheSpaniard-5337 I accept what can be demonstrated with evidence..not just what people write in story books..the bible is just another claim like the Koran, the book of mormon, the holy piby etc etc...just superstitious claims with no evidence
@@fekinel Well that is your opinion. Do you have evidence to prove your point? Maybe an alternative narrative that explains the four historically verified facts I presented?
@@TheSpaniard-5337 what verified facts?..do you mean in your story book?
Do we have any evidence that an apostle like, say, Peter was actually martyred for his beliefs and also that his life could have been saved by renouncing his testimony of the miracles of Jesus?
Yes, Lol you couldn't have picked a worse example to make your case. So here is what I need to know. if I give you the evidence what difference will it make to you?
Sarah Clark: if I were to find sufficiently compelling evidence for the resurrection, I would happily accept the claim. I would also be very grateful
@@seans5289
_" if I were to find sufficiently compelling evidence for the resurrection, I would happily accept the claim. I would also be very grateful"_
Oh, why does it have to be compelling, why not just evidence. let's go further let's say a small amount of evidence. I need to give you some value, oh, let's say the amount of evidence you have that the girl you choose for your wife will make the best wife and mother.
Sarah Clark: it seems I’m using words that get your defenses up. This isn’t my goal. I’d rather just talk about this stuff with an open mind so I can learn from you and, if need be, you can learn from me. I used the word “compelling” because, as you’ve pointed out, and as we’re discussing elsewhere: *to me,* claims like that an entity created the universe or that Buddha reached nirvana or that Jesus died for my sins or any other claim that falls outside of my every day experience should require evidence that could convince me such an event, person, etc. represented reality.
And I wouldn’t equate the amount of evidence with the strength of the evidence.
So, I’d be happy to receive a little evidence, as long as it can convince me to believe the truth.
@@seans5289
_"it seems I’m using words that get your defences up. This isn’t my goal.
"_
Seriously I don’t care what you claim your goal is I will respond as I see fit. Do not take offence take it as me being as honest as I can be.
_"I’d rather just talk about this stuff with an open mind so I can learn from you and, if need be, you can learn from me.
"_
It’s not wise to not be honest with me.
_"I used the word “compelling” because, as you’ve pointed out, and as we’re discussing elsewhere: to me, claims like that
an entity created the universe or that Buddha reached nirvana or that Jesus
died for my sins or any other claim that falls outside of my every day
experience should require evidence that could convince me such an event,
person, etc. represented reality.
"_
Well, from a biblical perspective I have no reason whatsoever to believe you can be convinced. I am told you are dead to the things of God. its God who does the awakening not me. I am aware you are a serial questioner of the godly having had much time spent on you. it could be said it's your hobby.
However, if what you tell me is true then your way forward is as follows.
1. Go to your room.
2. Kneel by your bed.
3. Pray that God will have mercy on you.
4. Ask Jesus to remove the scales from your eyes and doubt from your mind.
5. Read Johns gospel daily.
6. Pray daily.
7. Find a church that can teach you scriptures.
8. As you start to grow in the faith read the other gospels.
9. If you find you are not growing pray more.
10. If you find doing the above bizarre you could be what the bible calls a vessel made for destruction. If that is so, keep doing what you are doing if it gives you pleasure, as its all you have I’m afraid.
They're quite obviously not unbelievable because people believe they happened, but some people would believe anything.
_"They're quite obviously not unbelievable because people believe they happened, but some people would believe anything."_
Seemingly you are proof of that.
@@sarahclark5447
Go on
@@crazyprayingmantis5596
_"Go on"_
more evidence for my point.
@@sarahclark5447
Which is?
@@crazyprayingmantis5596
_"Which is?"_
'Which is' more evidence.
It's Justin from that radio show I used to listen to on a saturday afternoon. Whatever happened to that?
almost everytime I see a deep religeous speaker... white shirt and tie. You know, to boost their trustworthy appearance....
Gert Gybels like a salesman. I am not buying what they are selling.
Same with doctors
@@mardishores4016 maybe where you live, not so here. Dressed casual and we have a very trustworthy social healthcare system.
I can't take anyone seriously who thinks the gospels were written by disciples. Extremely ignorant. Just read them.
What do you mean??
@@saycheese6773 Read the first couple of verses of luke he says the stories have been handed down to them from the eyewitnesses. He never claimed to have met jesus. The earliest writings after Jesus' death were from Paul and he never met jesus either. Bottom line is we have no writings from anyone who ever met jesus. Anyone that has been to seminary knows this its not a secret or disputed among scholars.
It would be a lot easier to take theist claims more seriously if they could manage to make one without commiting multiple fallacies.
I get the, "I don't know" position. But why must we talk in terms of absolute proof? Or even overwhelmingly in-your-face empirical evidence? What's wrong with simply making a provisional inference? What's wrong with saying, "I don't know for sure, but I can see how God would make sense?" Why is Shermer insisting on an all-or-nothing position with regard to evidence in favor of God's existence?
Perhaps because claiming there is someone (ie God) is not taking a halfway position?
All you need to know is the sole reference source for the miracles in question is replete with scores of other fantastic (as in fantasy) tales. Why would the miracles be true when the rest is myth and allegory?
This kind of thinking comes from ignorance. The Gospels, whether you believe them or not, are not mythical. We evaluate the literary styles of ancient documents to determine if they're historical narrative or myth. People have this uninformed idea that they can arbitrarily refer to something they find to be unbelievable as mythical. "If it sounds silly to me it's a myth!" This is why a lot of great, atheist, philosophical minds are abandoning the new atheist movement. The movement is replete with people with poor thinking skills or no critical thinking skills.
@@drew2fast489 So, what exactly is the device which allows you to separate truth from mythology in literature? Schliemann did eventually find the ruins of Troy by reading Homer. Are we supposed to believe that Circe had the ability to change men into animals on that basis?
@@Simon.the.Likeable The literary style.
"Once upon a time"
"Long ago in a land far away"
Those are examples of something mythical. The Gospels are thorough, accurate history, accounting for people, places, rulers and things done and said.
To answer your question: because something is an historical account doesn't make it true. That's a different topic. But, you need to learn the difference between history and myth. Calling something a myth because you can't/won't believe it doesn't make it myth. It makes you guilty of arguing from personal incredulity.
@@drew2fast489 "As it was written in the prophets, Behold..."
"There was in the days of Herod, the King of Judea..."
"In the beginning was the Word..."
Seems to be some sort of thread there. Maybe "Once upon a time in a land far away" could be drawing on an existing template and not the other way round. The Gospels and Acts are set in an historical context and the cast of characters are based on real people. However, the plot (the census, slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, etc.) and supernatural claims (angels, the devil, miracles, etc.) have no method of direct independent verification outside the text in question.
@@Simon.the.Likeable The first century authors of the Gospels had absolutely nothing to gain by their claims but death and exile-and that's exactly what they got. The empty tomb narrative is best explained by Christ's resurrection. The multiple sightings afterward, the sudden explosive influence of Christianity-all best explained by the truth of it all. I'll also add the Shroud Of Turin. These aren't the reasons one believes, though.
I've been trying to find the foundation of Christianity? Anyone know where it's at?
The resurrection of Jesus
Check your cats litter box.
What you are talking about is not miracles but stories about miracles. In stories, anything is possible.
as Peter said: "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty". Jesus also said for some even one rising from the dead will not be enough.
@@bretzajac7986 That is circular reasoning. How do we know Peter did not follow cleverly devised stories? The Bible says so. How do we know the Bible is true? The Bible says so . . . etc.
@@doctorwebman by comparing other sources to confirm his story. Atheist will do anything and believe any nonsense instead of just accepting the obvious.
@@bretzajac7986 You apparently don't know how to reason. The Bible is the CLAIM. Using the claim to prove the claim is false logic, circular reasoning. How can you not understand that? If I wrote a claim where I was visited by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and then wrote in the story that everything I say is true, does that mean it's all true? No. I have to support the story with things that are NOT found in the claim.
@@doctorwebman your ignorance on history is only surpassed by your ignorance on Christianity. the bible claims 1800+ prophesies and many written (we have the ancient text) centuries before the events. This is observable, testable and verifiable and unique to only the bible and no other religions. Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-dated as being prior to the events foretold. Paul and Daniel pre-dated 3+ centuries before their prophesies of the Image, Man of Sin and Little Horn are observable, testable and verifiable and unique to only the bible and no other religions. you really do not understand the definition of history or historical documents do you? Well here it is: "a record or narrative description of past events". you just are biased and do not accept the bible but i assume you accept secular historical documents? seems quite hypocritical and shallow.
Yes. They are unbelievable. They are magic. What did you think
Magic is a nonsense word, a placeholder word when someone can't understand the mechanism through which something happens. People say telekinetic ability's are magic but if we confirmed they existed and went on too fully explain and understand the mechanism through which they worked people would stop calling them magic but how they worked would have never changed they wouldn't have changed from being done by magic to now being done through some other means it's just that people would now understand enough about them that they stop calling it magic.
There is an explanation/mechanism through which Jesus performed miracles, it's god, basically the idea being put forth is that an intelligence of some kind created the universe and is able and willing to perform these acts on his behalf the other beings in this universe not having seen these acts before are stunned by them and some label them magic but magic is not what performed these acts because magic is not a being, it can't do anything, it isn't even a process through which things are done, it is a human created category for mysteries with no obvious causal mechanism to rest until they are better understood. No one is saying Magic did it cause it isn't even a thing they are saying god is a thing and he did it.
@@Mr.Goodkat You literally explained magic by appealing to more magic
@@Mr.Goodkat
I agree with your explanation, but I too see that you've appealed to more magic. The phenomenon of God is not fully understood. Telekinesis, if proven real, wouldn't be magic anymore - so God, if proven real, would not be magic anymore.
@@NathanAMeyers Whether Telekinesis is proven real or not isn't relevant because it still wouldn't be magic, magic is not a thing, it's a human created category saying something is caused by magic and then later discovering the mechanism and saying "oh it's not magic anymore" it never was, it was always that undiscovered mechanism magic is not a thing if god exists and is parting seas and raising the dead it still isn't a thing, it's a linguistic creation when we created the sound/word magic we thereby created a category in our minds and it doesn't correspond to ANYTHING outside our minds, it's a meaningless word.
@@whatwecalllife7034 How? there isn't anything to explain because the word magic is gibberish, it's not only that I don't consider magic a thing I don't even consider it a valid word it's a sound with no meaning to me not a category I use.
There's two category's to me things we do understand and things we don't, if someone says to me is anything in either magic I ask what does that mean?
There is a core deception behind this type of apologetic: that the gospel authors were eyewitness accounts. The majority of scholarship disagrees with this position and actually present good evidence that Mark was written first, decades after the events, that Luke and Matthew followed, expanded on the accounts while also containing massive amounts of texts taken directly from Mark, and then followed by John who presents the most magical version of Jesus.
I have a dragon pet, he is 2 feet tall and sometimes he talks.
And you'll maintain that story under threat of torture and death?
There are no eye-witnesses to any of the Jesus story - but lots of evidence even today that people believe it
@@redbridgestreetepistemolog6088 You mean no eye-witnesses still alive today? Well, of course not. If you mean there were no eyewitnesses at the time, you might want to read Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Bauckham for a scholarly take on the issue.
At 1:11:45, when Luuk asked Michael if he would be happy to know the big men coming at him in an alley were themselves coming from a bible study. My answer would a big fat "NO". Why? Because these men might have thought Michael was gay, of another belief system, of another Christian branch that they consider heretical, or a host of things for which their biblical study might have admonished them to take very nasty action against the alleged sinner.
However, if the men were of the Jain religion (Jainism) that advocates absolutely no harm to ANY living being, then my mind would be at rest knowing these men would care about someone else's life in the here and now.
So, Luuk, NO!! Is the answer