As a mathematician I greatly respect the intellect of Dr. Lennox. He truly exposes many of the Sophistries, Invalid Patterns of Inference, and Historical Absurdities of the Atheists. Dawkins is truly a feeble intellect with a lot of Ad Hominem arguments that never answer fundamental objections to his positions. The world makes a truly fundamental mistake, calling many things "Christian" without ever bothering to see if the Biblical properties of Christianity are satisfied. Many so called "Christian religions" are nothing but Crafty Counterfeits exposed by the following Scripture: (all is fair in love and war as the saying goes!) 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 2Corinthians 11 Also Matthew 13:28 Keeping the Word of God at one's right hand will always sift out the wheat from the tares, the counterfeit from the true. Hence the violent and relentless opposition to the Word of God through the centuries. Also the Current attempt to Corrupt its semantics with new Bible translations based on corrupt gnostic "gospels" deriving from the church of Rome. WE WON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN! as the popular song screamed out!
As a philosopher, I don't share your admiration for Lennox. In fact, I use some of his speeches to teach people about fallacies, precisely because he offers so many of them within a short space of time.
@@AM_o2000 You are full of hot air. Philosophy is a failed intellectual inquiry. If you knew anything about its history you would appreciate the centuries of intellectual nothingness. In brief Aristotle was wrong about just everything and Kant sophisticated nonsense decisively refuted by Einstein (geometry is synthetic a priori according to Kant). Science and philosophy only emerged from darkness when the mathematicians got involved.i.e. Formal logic, axiomatic systems, independence proofs etc.... I really K'ant think of anything that philosophy has contributed to the human advance except confusion. U are not only Confused but Spiritually Dead. How true is the Scripture Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2Timothy 3:7 John Froelich Ph.D mathematics, NSF postdoc, IT consultant,...........etc.........etc...........
The backlash atheists give John Lennox makes me ashamed... I'm an atheist but I really respect the guy! If atheists were as civil as Lennox is when preaching our view, they might actually make a difference... all they seem to do on youtube is attack and ridicule believers. Doesn't help :(
Without a doubt, Lennox has grace and charm by the boatload... and is not exactly an intellectual slouch. A formidable debater. His civility and likeability remind me of the old parable about the Sun and the Wind, arguing over who was more powerful...
Then I'd expect him to be a bit smarter in this area. He's not an idiot for sure, but I don't see how such an academic mind call fall for religious non-sense.
+willzer808 he's far more intelligent than most atheists he debates. That's what. "i think only an idiot can be an atheist. we must admit that there is a great power or force of unlimited intelligence within our universe with an incomprehensible power that got the whole universe started in the first place" Christian anfinsen, Biochemist and nobel prize winner.
GamerDares wins That is called an argument from ignorance. "I don't know how this happend, therefore it must be God (or a god)". No serious atheist says that we know there is no god. What atheists say is that we have no reason to believe that there is one.
K Hauge not necessarily. Study biochemical systems and astronomy and you'll know that random unguided and might i add unobservable processes had nothing to do with it. So I'd say that's an argument from reasonable logic, nothing ignorant about it. The true ignorance is coming from you as you've never studied it and you certainly aren't a nobel prize winner are you? Alot of serious atheists say we know there is no god... There's plenty of reason... study science and you'll know there is. "Strangely enough science does more to prove Gods existance far better than religion ever could" Milti award winning British Physicist and agnostic Dr Paul davies ph.D.
GamerDares wins Let me rephrase that. Doesn't the fact that people actually believe in Scientology prove that man can be influenced to believe in any belief system? If so, what makes one more credible than the other?
Ben Theredonethat Well not everyone... i mean it's most popular with all those celebs right? It's obviously working for them... celebrity wise i mean not spiritually. And have you actually read into Scientology???? You'd think it was thought up by a 7 year old during a creative writing class. That and L. Ron hubbard was a self confessed lunatic. Yeah?
GamerDares wins My point is that if Scientology is believable, even though it is obviously fiction, then isn't it feasible that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are fictional, too?
I applaud Dr. Lennox, as well as those he debates with, for putting the debates out in the public forum so that each person can decide for themselves. Societies flourish with the free flow of ideas. Unfortunately, someone decided to pull the debate from You Tube, where anyone could be able to view it for free.
Somehow by chance, matter, space and time started to exist out of nothing in a big bang. Somehow by chance the laws of gravity and nature was seemingly fine tuned to allow the universe to expand and form and to support life and somehow by chance conditions were perfect for a molecule to somehow by chance form that contains the building blocks and code of life. Somehow by chance this molecule evolved into sentient beings and somehow by chance a being became rational, moral, conscious, and somehow this being was able to contemplate itself, the world around it and itself within the world around it and then go on to contemplate itself contemplating the world around it. And somehow by chance came across this post…. coincidence?...I think not...
Joe Richmond YES! But to enter the matrix we need the red pill! And the red pill is red and and blue at the same time. So we are inside and outside the matrix at the same time. Furthermore, the matrix exists and doesn't exist and so are we. So when u look into the 136th dimension of space which is in the non existing matrix u can prove the theroy and learn rationality.
The communist regimes of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were NOT atheist, but rather, replaced one form of religion with another- that is to say, the cult of personalities and strict ideologies of these regimes WAS a religion
people on all sides need to learn how to have a conversation when discussing this question without resorting to being cruel. Nothing's going to get resolved without that civility
No, we can't disprove, but we can test the validity or acceptability of each of those. Again, for your convenience: 1. Is it empirically adequate? 2. Is it logically coherent? 3. Is the experience relevant?
@smaakjeks : I apologize for the typos earlier. I do trust the current scholars because Ive read a lot about textual criticism and the amount of effort they put to every detail. I also think that available evidences such as Pauline epistles are sufficient and reasonable given that theres a systematic way of analyzing them. At the end of the day, i dont care whether Jesus existed or not, it makes no difference in my life. It was nice talking to you.
Does anyone know who uploaded the video titled, Christopher Hitchens v John Lennox Is God Great. Just curious as it was removed and I wondered why would they do that.
@sids500 "The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them." G.K. Chesterton. So should we accept absolutely everything, that anyone says at face value? No, not necessarily. Refer to validation method I mentioned to another commenter: 1. Is it empirically adequate? 2. Is it logically coherent? 3. Is the experience relevant?
Yes, please write to us as smooth suggested. If you want to write, email or phone smooth, go to his website through his channel where contact info is provided to the public.
as an Atheists i applaude the guy speaking. He speaks very clearly and precisely. Ive watched many videos of newdow and hitchens and they get all flustered at the thought of someone disbelieving.
The article mentions that the Church was purged by Stalinist, then it comes to this section: "During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, and thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression during Khrushchev's rule. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia."
I think Voltaire said it best. 'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities' That's why belief in a God is dangerous. Once you've been made to believe the impossible, it's not a hard sell to make you fight, not for yourself or your self interest or even for the god you claim to be fighting for, but for your belief.
*. Also, Secondly, have you read Job? Apparently not very well, because you'd understand that the context of the passage was not about the physical appearance of the earth, and how the light of dawn shines on it, giving it its wonderful landscape and scenery. This is about the differences in landscape and not the flatness of the land. Want to try again? I can do this all day.
From where is the interviewer referencing John Cleese? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't sound like something Cleese would say about the intention or the production of the Life of Brian film.
@GeetarAdam I'd like to read those, but unfortunately don't have the time. Perhaps you could summarise some of the points the authors make? And as for hell/pain and suffering, while they may not be entirely apart, they are very much different discussions, and you have yet to respond to my points about hell.
@SOAS007 You're twisting text By starting halfway down the sentence you made it sound like it said that Saul never went to Jerusalem, but this is the entire sentence: "But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus." "WHEN"
@Crobat87 I would genuinely like to know when this happened. I've not heard of any church-burnings or lynchings done by anyone that is directly attributable to their atheism. Especially considering I'm an atheist myself, I really do want to know of these instances.
@findo I was not talking about positive and negative beliefs, I was talking about deriving an "ought" from an "is". You cannot infer from a proposition "there is no gods" (is) an other proposition "we must kill believers" (ought), that's called an is-ought fallacy. It has nothing to do with positive or negative beliefs.
@SOAS007 By source texts I don't mean the originals. I mean the greek text that we have. Why that text is trustworthy is because when you back to the oldest manuscripts, you find that there are hardly any differences at all. We have a whole lot of manuscripts and the fact that they are almost exactly similar to one another means that there were no changes in message. If a text was manipulated you would see it right away because there were plenty of copies around to compare it to
That's what I thought. He is balanced, generous in his praise towards his debate opponents, and comes across as friendly. The amount of dislikes is bizarre.
@MasterRobinHood Are you making a comment on the particularism that exists within many religions? (Particularism being the claim that "my religion is right and yours is wrong.")
@smaakjeks: The Julius Caesar bit was my bad. Im no scholar and I havnt checked your sources yet. Theres been no widespread critique of historicity of Jesus among serious historians. Most Bible scholars who teach at big universities are not christians (no vested interest). The only people who critique are people who seek sensationalism to sell their books or independent researchers with no credentials whatsover.
@SOAS007 Some three years. Luke was such a historian: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught"
there is a desperate need for christians to think critically, to develop reasoning and skills of logic,..the problem is that the universities,our very centers of thought and logic are filled with academics wallowing in poisonous, distorted "truth"
You do realize that it is because religion that we have university's and laws in place that allow you to speak freely and safely? Clearly the world view of Christians are extremely well reasoned and logical. It would be ignorant to say that they aren't just because you don't agree with them.
You know, I've listened to a lot of Lennox lectures and debates. I can see why you would think this, as from time to time, his logic is fairly gray and fuzzy. But, I'd also have to say, in my travels of comparing atheism and Christianity in my life, Lennox has made some of the most affirming and brilliant responses to the hardest questions, doing so giving tremendous respect to all sides of the discussion. I aspire to approach people who don't believe like me, with respect as John Lennox does.
@AceSkepTik This is an interview, not a debate. Its not just one historian- but the vast majority of historians in all big research universities, all peer-reviewed publications point to the fact that Jesus was an actual person. He just quoted one. One can never prove historically that the miracles happened or divinity of Jesus- but its a consensus among secular scholars that Jesus was an actual person, just like evolution is agreed upon by most microbiologists today.
@Ikorose11 You said, "Being an Atheist is in the same sense as being a vegetarian" -Being a Christian is in the same sense as finding treasure or the fountain of youth You said, "No one's gonna kill people in the name of vegetarianism" -UNLESS they believe that eating meat is "so horrible" that they have to sacrfice all meat eaters to "save the world" from the life style of eating meat You asked, "How can a disbelief... warrant the killing of millions?" -It makes narcessism easier to persue
Actually I have a BA and an MA in history and most of my BA modules were about socialism and religion so I do have an understanding of what I'm talking about. Secondly I "believe" what has been confirmed historically Stalin did incorporate the church and state during the conflict with German to improve russian moral. I don't see what a quote from Lenin has to do with Stalin anyway as Stalinism was quite different from what Lenin had envisioned.
@SOAS007 Yeah and because they're only found in later versions we can keep in mind that they probably were not in the original. But none of that really changes any of the teachings anyway. It's not like some texts say "salvation by eating chicken wings" and others "salvation by faith in Christ"
@Libertas78 Evidence suggests actually that Hitler was not an avid follower of Nietzsche and in any event it was not uncommon at that time to be enamoured with Nietzsche's work, none of which advocated murderous fascist dictatorships by the way. I've said numerous times on this video that Hitler was not necessarily a genuine Catholic although he does reference it in Mein Kampf. Also, while the pope officially represents Catholics, Nietzsche does not represent all atheists.
@AceSkepTik Forgive me for the use of the word "all". Here are two journal publications by the well known skeptic scholar Bart Ehrman refering to Jesus as an actual figure: Jesus as Apocalyptic Prophet,” Perspectives in Religion, 26 (1999) pp. 153-66, “Christ as a Divine Man in Texts Disputed and Apocryphal,” British New Testament Colloquium. September 2004. University of Edinburgh.
Hey Al. I noticed that a lot of your videos on other channels are getting a lot of thumbs down. What up with that? Are you going to 'prosecute'? Are you going to complain of copyright infringement? I didn't know you could copyright crap.
Quote from John Lennox:” I notice that Christianity was involved in atrocities not by obeying Christ but by disobeying him." So when God tells Israel to wipe out the Amalekites and leave no man, married woman, and child alive, that’s not considered an atrocity?
The existence of Jesus as a historical figure has been questioned by some biblical scholars; among the earliest were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies though Volney felt that confused memories of an obscure historical figure might have integrated into this already existing solar mythology
This information isn't even all that different to find if you do just a tiny bit of research, even wikipedia has a section referencing it. Here's the literal description from wikipedia itself on the subject
@GeorgeEJWaites To christians who do not believe what I said: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" 1 cor 2:14 Christians have always believed this. It may be new to you, but it isn't to us. Fallen man doesn't think the things of God are logical, but God is gracious to give God seekers the Spirit (save them) and make them understand
@anarkoFred I didn't say that all atheists are violent towards religion. The point was that Stalin's atheism while obviously not solely to blame, not inconsequential either.
@mrcolbusmaximus I was taking you as a christian guy. Sorry, if you aren't. If I encounter with Christians in this topic, then for sure, the debate will initiate.
@DerekMcCauley Maybe people don't like the fact this interview begins with the question "what do you think of hitchens as a person" and continues with a focus on analysing everything except the actual arguments of hitchens.
The most common excuse on judgment day will be ignorance. Everyones conscience knows that we are not the supreme being, but they choose to ignore it. You were created with a soul for a divine pupose, dont throw that away. God is very very real.
@gneisenau321 LOL...it was lovely legal wording agreed upon as a settlement by the attorneys. The editor violated the journal policies, Sewell claimed it made it look like he had "committed a crime" or the paper contained "serious errors" due to Elseviers policies on withdrawal. So they were made to say no "errors or technical problems found by the reviewers or editors". Self plagiarism is NOT an error or technical problem. Note they did not say the paper did not violate publishers policies.
@SOAS007 Descendant of David, virgin birth, born in Bethlehem, came out of Egypt, nazarene, miracles, despised and rejected, man of sorrows, beaten with a rod, given vinegar to drink, hands and feet nailed, suffered for the sins of others, no broken bones, His clothes were gambled for, He would see the light of life after the suffering. Those are some examples. I can't imagine someone fitting all that not being the Messiah. The 2nd coming couldn't have happened yet, because of circumstances
@mjhallfs How do we deal with supernatural claims? This is a good question, but quite obvious when we think about it. Think about the statement: 'Science is great tool for testing the natural world'. How do we know this is true? We can't test that statement using science alone. It's a philosophical question. So there are several options when looking at truthfulness: 1. Is it empirically adequate? 2. Is it logically coherent? 3. Is the experience relevant? The rest falls in to place.
@calum66 I never said that anti-theism was perfect. My argument is that Atheism itself, which is a rejection of an idea, is not sufficient as a cause for anything. Anti-theism is a positive affirmation of something, that the world would be better off without religion, and is therefore sufficient to be considered a cause. Whether or not that ideology of anti-theism is dangerous then also depends upon the means used by individuals to reach that end. That's my entire argument.
@SOAS007 An example: You wake up and say "what a beautiful sunrise!". Then you read in a science book that the earth actually revolves around the sun. No one would call that a contradiction, because everyone knows you don't meant "sunrise" in the literal sense. On surface level though it's a contradiction.
@GeorgeEJWaites I'm not saying that theories aren't important at all. I'm just longing for the day that every atheist could raise his hand and admit that they don't KNOW, but BELIEVE. I've got nothing against the evolution theory in and of itself. If people would only just realize it's a theory and not absolute truth I'd be a lot happier. Men wrote the Bible. No, I don't find it hard to believe that if God wanted to communicate something to us, He could uphold His Truth, even if written by man
I love this video. John Lennox so calmly states his views and perspective. Yet as we see just with Jesus, here we have a massive amount of atheist dislikes. Sigh.
I am an atheist, and I admittedly don't know very much about John Lennox, but from watching this video I have gained a favorable impression of him. I do find it odd how well-educated individuals can still subscribe to any version of Christianity or either of the other two Abrahamic faiths. Among the educated believers I would expect a more Deistic approach to the god question. Curious.
Assertions do not need doctrines - just evidence - or to counter that, lack of evidence. If I make a (wrong) assertion to you that the grass is blue, we could go back and forth with evidence, no doctrine or dogma required. And since religions make a statement of existence, the burden of proof lies with them.
I say, if we have to have Christians, which realistically we have to come to terms with (in our lifetime), let's have this guy. But, let's keep him out of politics and education, please.
i like the way lennox speaks about his adversaries, he says nothing he wouldn't say to them in person. can't say that about every adversary of the "four horsemen of the COUNTERapocalypse"...
As far as inventing a tire, I tire is needed for a car and for cars we need alloys and alloys were used in swords and armor, horseback riding was the norm, someone in future could use your argument and say "during the 1000 years after they went to the moon they couldn't even invent a flying car" you know why? there's no need, nor do we have the understanding of materials enough to do that yet, carbon dating dates the earth at 4.54 billion years along every other form of dating.
@3209486 The closet atheist comment was in reference to a person (you? I can't find the message I was responding to) that said none of the psycho atheist dictators were very public with their atheism. You comment "the relativity you place between communism and Islam is irrelevant" I have no idea what you are talking about. Even if I knew the context, that sentence is very confusing. What is relativity between 2 things?
@mjhallfs But more so, I'd ignore most claims and go for the core: What are the main claims and what separates them. Generally most religious claims tend to be illogical from the get go (although atheists tend to hit at the wrong point). Also, when I refer to logic, I am talking in the terms of (A=A), not, 'Susie thought it was so illogical that she would wear heels tonight'. It's ironic that Sam Harris uses philosophy to reject it...
@GiantSandles The problem with that? AAAAHHHH. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to continue our back and forth, just write over email. This youtube reply thing is very irritating.
In addition, I was making the point that most of the christians I've spoken with don't really know their bible and it's sad that I have to point out their lack of understanding of their own religious book...Again, I agree with you...Maybe I should have explained it a little better...my apologies...
@gneisenau321 I just read that the Amalekites where known for their vineyards, you can't carry those around on a camel. Vineyards requires land, argriculture, water, farming. So obviously they weren't all nomads.
Atheism may lead to certain people committing acts of evil, but the difference is - as Dawkins says - there isn't any logical pathway to be found between atheism and horrific acts. It's very easy to find one between religion (or at least the 'big three) and these acts. Stalin for example was more influenced by his political ideology than his atheism (if he was even influenced by that at all).
@SOAS007 Plate tectonics exist. I don't deny what we can show. I'm just saying that I don't believe millions of years of plate tectonics created all the mountains, but that the flood shows that they were created very rapidly. The water is in all the oceans. The mountains really started growing when the floodwaters were receding, so the water didn't have to be as high as the highest mountains we know now. I'm not sure. It was probably a miracle, so science may not be able to explain it all
@vespine The point is that neither necessarily "directly" lead to people doing evil deeds. To use your example of stamp collecting, if stamp collectors can attempt to force people to stamp collect, then "Aphiletists" can attempt to "put an end to the terrible abomination of stamp collecting," the "opium of the people" and so on.
Um. I've met more than one atheist who believes that the idea of the universe coming from nothing is more probable than the existence of a God who created it. So, if you don't believe that then how would you say the universe started? Was all the energy, matter, natural laws, etc. just always there? Or do you think it came from somewhere?
It is incredible that even a smart man as John Lennox, dont realise that atheism in it self can't be blamed for the evils done in history. Atheism is a not a believe, it's the rejection of a believe, and can therefore not motivate any actions by it self. Actions come from believes, not from nonbelieves. To do evil you need a positive believe, like religions are evil and needs to be destroyed. But that is an additional believe and is not inherent in the concept of atheism.
@SOAS007 Eh, I'm not sure if I get your point, but maybe I can answer. The Messiah had to be a descendant of David. Luke gives us the bloodline, and Matthew the legal (royal) line. The legal line is traced through the fathers and indicates that Jesus possesses the right to be king/Messiah, because Joseph was His legal father. Jesus' bloodline is traced through Mary, because Jesus didn't have the blood of Joseph, because of the virgin birth.
@SOAS007 Nah it's not because the message is contradictory to the rest of the NT. I think a lot of scholars (mostly secular if you ask me) reject it as Paul's work just because of the use of greek and because of the themes. But to be honest with you I don't think those arguments are strong enough for me to reject the fact that it opens with "Paul,..., to Timothy". The differences in language and themes can be easily explained by the fact that he didn't write to a community, but to a "student"
@vincentjdrummer "The mountains really started growing when the floodwaters were receding, so the water didn't have to be as high as the highest mountains we know now. " so the high pressure water appeared, then as the water receded ( to where) montains were suddenly appearing by unknown means .. What about all the mountains that already existed and were populated, did the water go up them. There is no evidence for any of this BTW.!
@MomoTheBellyDancer I checked the definition of mutation and you're right. I thought you couldn't call it mutation if you changed cells with your own hands. I'm too used to mutation being a random thing that happens. I take that back, but my argument remains; there's intelligence behind genetic modification. You can't simply make a parallel to humans controlling mutation and mutation being some natural force. You have to prove mutations can be beneficial on their own merit
As a mathematician I greatly respect the intellect of Dr. Lennox. He truly exposes
many of the Sophistries, Invalid Patterns of Inference, and Historical Absurdities of
the Atheists.
Dawkins is truly a feeble intellect with a lot of Ad Hominem arguments that never
answer fundamental objections to his positions.
The world makes a truly fundamental mistake, calling many things "Christian"
without ever bothering to see if the Biblical properties of Christianity are
satisfied.
Many so called "Christian religions" are nothing but Crafty Counterfeits exposed by the following Scripture: (all is fair in love and war as the saying goes!)
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 2Corinthians 11
Also Matthew 13:28
Keeping the Word of God at one's right hand will always sift out the wheat from the tares, the counterfeit from the true. Hence the violent and relentless opposition to the Word of God through the centuries. Also the Current attempt to Corrupt its
semantics with new Bible translations based on corrupt gnostic "gospels"
deriving from the church of Rome.
WE WON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN! as the popular song screamed out!
As a philosopher, I don't share your admiration for Lennox. In fact, I use some of his speeches to teach people about fallacies, precisely because he offers so many of them within a short space of time.
@@AM_o2000 You are full of hot air. Philosophy is a failed intellectual inquiry. If you knew anything about its history you would appreciate the centuries of intellectual nothingness. In brief Aristotle was wrong about just everything and Kant sophisticated nonsense decisively refuted by Einstein (geometry is synthetic a priori according to Kant). Science and philosophy only emerged from darkness when the mathematicians got involved.i.e. Formal logic, axiomatic systems, independence proofs etc....
I really K'ant think of anything that philosophy has contributed to the human advance except confusion.
U are not only Confused but Spiritually Dead. How true is the Scripture
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2Timothy 3:7
John Froelich Ph.D mathematics, NSF postdoc, IT consultant,...........etc.........etc...........
@@WmTyndale have you considered the possibility that you might be a bigoted simpleton?
The backlash atheists give John Lennox makes me ashamed... I'm an atheist but I really respect the guy!
If atheists were as civil as Lennox is when preaching our view, they might actually make a difference... all they seem to do on youtube is attack and ridicule believers. Doesn't help :(
Matt Nolan Mad respect for you!
Without a doubt, Lennox has grace and charm by the boatload... and is not exactly an intellectual slouch. A formidable debater. His civility and likeability remind me of the old parable about the Sun and the Wind, arguing over who was more powerful...
When you attack or ridicule it’s a sign you know you have lost the argument!!
What a wise man, John Lenox!!
Atheists pushing the dislike button are mad because Hitchens got destroyed during the debate
Woah Lennox has 3 doctorates?? :O WOW!
so what?
Then I'd expect him to be a bit smarter in this area. He's not an idiot for sure, but I don't see how such an academic mind call fall for religious non-sense.
+willzer808 he's far more intelligent than most atheists he debates.
That's what.
"i think only an idiot can be an atheist.
we must admit that there is a great power or force of unlimited intelligence within our universe with an incomprehensible power that got the whole universe started in the first place"
Christian anfinsen, Biochemist and nobel prize winner.
GamerDares wins
That is called an argument from ignorance. "I don't know how this happend, therefore it must be God (or a god)".
No serious atheist says that we know there is no god. What atheists say is that we have no reason to believe that there is one.
K Hauge not necessarily.
Study biochemical systems and astronomy and you'll know that random unguided and might i add unobservable processes had nothing to do with it.
So I'd say that's an argument from reasonable logic, nothing ignorant about it.
The true ignorance is coming from you as you've never studied it and you certainly aren't a nobel prize winner are you?
Alot of serious atheists say we know there is no god...
There's plenty of reason... study science and you'll know there is.
"Strangely enough science does more to prove Gods existance far better than religion ever could"
Milti award winning British Physicist and agnostic Dr Paul davies ph.D.
if a christian video doesn't get a lot of dislikes, then we are doing it wrong
LENNOX; atheisms worst nightmare.
+GamerDares wins Doesn't the fact that people actually believe in Scientology prove that man can be influenced to believe anything?
Ben Theredonethat Yes but even Christians know that Scientology is a money making cult and not a credible belief system 😉
GamerDares wins Let me rephrase that.
Doesn't the fact that people actually believe in Scientology prove that man can be influenced to believe in any belief system? If so, what makes one more credible than the other?
Ben Theredonethat Well not everyone... i mean it's most popular with all those celebs right?
It's obviously working for them... celebrity wise i mean not spiritually.
And have you actually read into Scientology????
You'd think it was thought up by a 7 year old during a creative writing class.
That and L. Ron hubbard was a self confessed lunatic.
Yeah?
GamerDares wins My point is that if Scientology is believable, even though it is obviously fiction, then isn't it feasible that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are fictional, too?
I applaud Dr. Lennox, as well as those he debates with, for putting the debates out in the public forum so that each person can decide for themselves. Societies flourish with the free flow of ideas. Unfortunately, someone decided to pull the debate from You Tube, where anyone could be able to view it for free.
its back on
Somehow by chance, matter, space and time started to exist out of nothing in a big bang. Somehow by chance the laws of gravity and nature was seemingly fine tuned to allow the universe to expand and form and to support life and somehow by chance conditions were perfect for a molecule to somehow by chance form that contains the building blocks and code of life. Somehow by chance this molecule evolved into sentient beings and somehow by chance a being became rational, moral, conscious, and somehow this being was able to contemplate itself, the world around it and itself within the world around it and then go on to contemplate itself contemplating the world around it. And somehow by chance came across this post…. coincidence?...I think not...
No no it's all an illusion! Nothing exists bro nothing!
+John Ron HAHAHA. lol. We could very well be in the Matrix too.
Joe Richmond YES! But to enter the matrix we need the red pill! And the red pill is red and and blue at the same time. So we are inside and outside the matrix at the same time. Furthermore, the matrix exists and doesn't exist and so are we. So when u look into the 136th dimension of space which is in the non existing matrix u can prove the theroy and learn rationality.
+John Ron Indeed, atheism is retarded. Jesus is the truth. I think, therefor I am.
Joe Richmond yes brother! It makes feel sad atheists want to seperate themselves from God at ANY cost.
Dr. John Lennox is a brilliant man
The communist regimes of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were NOT atheist, but rather, replaced one form of religion with another- that is to say, the cult of personalities and strict ideologies of these regimes WAS a religion
lol praising Stalin as a god is far more credible inmy opinion because we have direct reliable primary resources that he actually existed
Search for a real history site chief. Those regimes where atheist.
Liam Stalin has better morals than the God of the bible.
Graham Hevey Still Stalin is not as immoral as the God of the bible is.
John Burke no they were not
people on all sides need to learn how to have a conversation when discussing this question without resorting to being cruel. Nothing's going to get resolved without that civility
No, we can't disprove, but we can test the validity or acceptability of each of those. Again, for your convenience:
1. Is it empirically adequate?
2. Is it logically coherent?
3. Is the experience relevant?
John Lennox isn't just a brilliant man but also a really nice person, his testimony speaks more than whatever speech he could give.
@smaakjeks : I apologize for the typos earlier. I do trust the current scholars because Ive read a lot about textual criticism and the amount of effort they put to every detail. I also think that available evidences such as Pauline epistles are sufficient and reasonable given that theres a systematic way of analyzing them. At the end of the day, i dont care whether Jesus existed or not, it makes no difference in my life. It was nice talking to you.
Does anyone know who uploaded the video titled, Christopher Hitchens v John Lennox Is God Great. Just curious as it was removed and I wondered why would they do that.
+TheEgertak You have to buy it on iTunes. I wish I was joking.
@balbahut0g
Depends on your view of Jesus ;-)
Jesus is still God and has all right to let people have what's coming for them
Does anyone have the link to the actual debate? I can't find it .-.
@sids500 "The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them." G.K. Chesterton.
So should we accept absolutely everything, that anyone says at face value? No, not necessarily. Refer to validation method I mentioned to another commenter:
1. Is it empirically adequate?
2. Is it logically coherent?
3. Is the experience relevant?
Yes, please write to us as smooth suggested.
If you want to write, email or phone smooth, go to his website through his channel where contact info is provided to the public.
as an Atheists i applaude the guy speaking. He speaks very clearly and precisely. Ive watched many videos of newdow and hitchens and they get all flustered at the thought of someone disbelieving.
The article mentions that the Church was purged by Stalinist, then it comes to this section:
"During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, and thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression during Khrushchev's rule. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia."
I love Lennox - witty, articulate, diversely well read and devastatingly proficient in the philosophy of science - a gentleman all the while!
I think Voltaire said it best.
'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities'
That's why belief in a God is dangerous. Once you've been made to believe the impossible, it's not a hard sell to make you fight, not for yourself or your self interest or even for the god you claim to be fighting for, but for your belief.
*. Also,
Secondly, have you read Job? Apparently not very well, because you'd understand that the context of the passage was not about the physical appearance of the earth, and how the light of dawn shines on it, giving it its wonderful landscape and scenery. This is about the differences in landscape and not the flatness of the land. Want to try again? I can do this all day.
From where is the interviewer referencing John Cleese? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't sound like something Cleese would say about the intention or the production of the Life of Brian film.
@GeetarAdam I'd like to read those, but unfortunately don't have the time. Perhaps you could summarise some of the points the authors make? And as for hell/pain and suffering, while they may not be entirely apart, they are very much different discussions, and you have yet to respond to my points about hell.
@SOAS007
You're twisting text
By starting halfway down the sentence you made it sound like it said that Saul never went to Jerusalem, but this is the entire sentence:
"But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus."
"WHEN"
@Crobat87 I would genuinely like to know when this happened. I've not heard of any church-burnings or lynchings done by anyone that is directly attributable to their atheism. Especially considering I'm an atheist myself, I really do want to know of these instances.
@SOAS007
Could you please give the verses that would indicate contradiction? Then I can look into it
@findo I was not talking about positive and negative beliefs, I was talking about deriving an "ought" from an "is". You cannot infer from a proposition "there is no gods" (is) an other proposition "we must kill believers" (ought), that's called an is-ought fallacy. It has nothing to do with positive or negative beliefs.
@SOAS007
By source texts I don't mean the originals. I mean the greek text that we have.
Why that text is trustworthy is because when you back to the oldest manuscripts, you find that there are hardly any differences at all. We have a whole lot of manuscripts and the fact that they are almost exactly similar to one another means that there were no changes in message. If a text was manipulated you would see it right away because there were plenty of copies around to compare it to
As an atheist, you can't hate something you don't believe exists.
I LOVE JOHN LENNOX!!..One of the Best Debaters/ Christian Apologists in the Business!! XOXO
That's what I thought. He is balanced, generous in his praise towards his debate opponents, and comes across as friendly. The amount of dislikes is bizarre.
Come on people, I know this channel is called "PublicChristianity" but there is no reason to dislike this video.
@MasterRobinHood Are you making a comment on the particularism that exists within many religions? (Particularism being the claim that "my religion is right and yours is wrong.")
@smaakjeks: The Julius Caesar bit was my bad. Im no scholar and I havnt checked your sources yet. Theres been no widespread critique of historicity of Jesus among serious historians. Most Bible scholars who teach at big universities are not christians (no vested interest). The only people who critique are people who seek sensationalism to sell their books or independent researchers with no credentials whatsover.
@SOAS007 Some three years. Luke was such a historian:
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught"
there is a desperate need for christians to think critically, to develop reasoning and skills of logic,..the problem is that the universities,our very centers of thought and logic are filled with academics wallowing in poisonous, distorted "truth"
You do realize that it is because religion that we have university's and laws in place that allow you to speak freely and safely? Clearly the world view of Christians are extremely well reasoned and logical. It would be ignorant to say that they aren't just because you don't agree with them.
You know, I've listened to a lot of Lennox lectures and debates. I can see why you would think this, as from time to time, his logic is fairly gray and fuzzy. But, I'd also have to say, in my travels of comparing atheism and Christianity in my life, Lennox has made some of the most affirming and brilliant responses to the hardest questions, doing so giving tremendous respect to all sides of the discussion. I aspire to approach people who don't believe like me, with respect as John Lennox does.
@AceSkepTik This is an interview, not a debate. Its not just one historian- but the vast majority of historians in all big research universities, all peer-reviewed publications point to the fact that Jesus was an actual person. He just quoted one. One can never prove historically that the miracles happened or divinity of Jesus- but its a consensus among secular scholars that Jesus was an actual person, just like evolution is agreed upon by most microbiologists today.
@Ikorose11 You said, "Being an Atheist is in the same sense as being a vegetarian"
-Being a Christian is in the same sense as finding treasure or the fountain of youth
You said, "No one's gonna kill people in the name of vegetarianism"
-UNLESS they believe that eating meat is "so horrible" that they have to sacrfice all meat eaters to "save the world" from the life style of eating meat
You asked, "How can a disbelief... warrant the killing of millions?"
-It makes narcessism easier to persue
Actually I have a BA and an MA in history and most of my BA modules were about socialism and religion so I do have an understanding of what I'm talking about. Secondly I "believe" what has been confirmed historically Stalin did incorporate the church and state during the conflict with German to improve russian moral. I don't see what a quote from Lenin has to do with Stalin anyway as Stalinism was quite different from what Lenin had envisioned.
I love this guy...He is so humbled...
@SOAS007
Yeah and because they're only found in later versions we can keep in mind that they probably were not in the original. But none of that really changes any of the teachings anyway. It's not like some texts say "salvation by eating chicken wings" and others "salvation by faith in Christ"
@Libertas78 Evidence suggests actually that Hitler was not an avid follower of Nietzsche and in any event it was not uncommon at that time to be enamoured with Nietzsche's work, none of which advocated murderous fascist dictatorships by the way. I've said numerous times on this video that Hitler was not necessarily a genuine Catholic although he does reference it in Mein Kampf. Also, while the pope officially represents Catholics, Nietzsche does not represent all atheists.
@AceSkepTik Forgive me for the use of the word "all". Here are two journal publications by the well known skeptic scholar Bart Ehrman refering to Jesus as an actual figure: Jesus as Apocalyptic Prophet,” Perspectives in Religion, 26 (1999) pp. 153-66, “Christ as a Divine Man in Texts Disputed and Apocryphal,” British New Testament Colloquium. September 2004. University of Edinburgh.
Hey Al. I noticed that a lot of your videos on other channels are getting a lot of thumbs down. What up with that? Are you going to 'prosecute'? Are you going to complain of copyright infringement? I didn't know you could copyright crap.
@SOAS007
And who are you to put a recent definition on a word that was used 2000 years ago in a completely different culture in a different language?
Quote from John Lennox:” I notice that Christianity was involved in atrocities not by obeying Christ but by disobeying him."
So when God tells Israel to wipe out the Amalekites and leave no man, married woman, and child alive, that’s not considered an atrocity?
John Lennox seems like a fairly reasonable fellow. If more christians were like him they would be a decent bunch
Lenox is brilliant! His ideas and philosophy are well thought out.
Thanks - I will read and hopefully mull over it - hope its good!
Is the video broken or is it just me it won't play for?
The existence of Jesus as a historical figure has been questioned by some biblical scholars; among the earliest were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies though Volney felt that confused memories of an obscure historical figure might have integrated into this already existing solar mythology
This information isn't even all that different to find if you do just a tiny bit of research, even wikipedia has a section referencing it. Here's the literal description from wikipedia itself on the subject
@GeorgeEJWaites To christians who do not believe what I said: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" 1 cor 2:14
Christians have always believed this. It may be new to you, but it isn't to us. Fallen man doesn't think the things of God are logical, but God is gracious to give God seekers the Spirit (save them) and make them understand
@anarkoFred I didn't say that all atheists are violent towards religion. The point was that Stalin's atheism while obviously not solely to blame, not inconsequential either.
@mrcolbusmaximus I was taking you as a christian guy. Sorry, if you aren't. If I encounter with Christians in this topic, then for sure, the debate will initiate.
@DerekMcCauley Maybe people don't like the fact this interview begins with the question "what do you think of hitchens as a person" and continues with a focus on analysing everything except the actual arguments of hitchens.
it's kind of funny how all this guys questions were "is this new atheist movement going to make christianity look bad"?
@Freethinker12341 I agree, so whats your point? My dad is a Christian and he is a liberal while I'm a Christian and I'm a conservative...
The most common excuse on judgment day will be ignorance.
Everyones conscience knows that we are not the supreme being, but they choose to ignore it.
You were created with a soul for a divine pupose, dont throw that away.
God is very very real.
@gneisenau321 LOL...it was lovely legal wording agreed upon as a settlement by the attorneys. The editor violated the journal policies, Sewell claimed it made it look like he had "committed a crime" or the paper contained "serious errors" due to Elseviers policies on withdrawal. So they were made to say no "errors or technical problems found by the reviewers or editors". Self plagiarism is NOT an error or technical problem. Note they did not say the paper did not violate publishers policies.
dude, can you give me a source for these facts please?
You just don't get it do you?
@SOAS007 Descendant of David, virgin birth, born in Bethlehem, came out of Egypt, nazarene, miracles, despised and rejected, man of sorrows, beaten with a rod, given vinegar to drink, hands and feet nailed, suffered for the sins of others, no broken bones, His clothes were gambled for, He would see the light of life after the suffering. Those are some examples. I can't imagine someone fitting all that not being the Messiah. The 2nd coming couldn't have happened yet, because of circumstances
@mjhallfs How do we deal with supernatural claims? This is a good question, but quite obvious when we think about it. Think about the statement: 'Science is great tool for testing the natural world'. How do we know this is true? We can't test that statement using science alone. It's a philosophical question. So there are several options when looking at truthfulness:
1. Is it empirically adequate?
2. Is it logically coherent?
3. Is the experience relevant?
The rest falls in to place.
@calum66
I never said that anti-theism was perfect. My argument is that Atheism itself, which is a rejection of an idea, is not sufficient as a cause for anything. Anti-theism is a positive affirmation of something, that the world would be better off without religion, and is therefore sufficient to be considered a cause. Whether or not that ideology of anti-theism is dangerous then also depends upon the means used by individuals to reach that end. That's my entire argument.
@moonshineinsummer1 Sad? He's talking about Hitchens. What should he call it?
@SOAS007
An example: You wake up and say "what a beautiful sunrise!".
Then you read in a science book that the earth actually revolves around the sun.
No one would call that a contradiction, because everyone knows you don't meant "sunrise" in the literal sense. On surface level though it's a contradiction.
@GeorgeEJWaites I'm not saying that theories aren't important at all. I'm just longing for the day that every atheist could raise his hand and admit that they don't KNOW, but BELIEVE. I've got nothing against the evolution theory in and of itself. If people would only just realize it's a theory and not absolute truth I'd be a lot happier.
Men wrote the Bible. No, I don't find it hard to believe that if God wanted to communicate something to us, He could uphold His Truth, even if written by man
Can you give me a citation on that?
I love this video. John Lennox so calmly states his views and perspective. Yet as we see just with Jesus, here we have a massive amount of atheist dislikes. Sigh.
I am an atheist, and I admittedly don't know very much about John Lennox, but from watching this video I have gained a favorable impression of him. I do find it odd how well-educated individuals can still subscribe to any version of Christianity or either of the other two Abrahamic faiths. Among the educated believers I would expect a more Deistic approach to the god question. Curious.
Assertions do not need doctrines - just evidence - or to counter that, lack of evidence. If I make a (wrong) assertion to you that the grass is blue, we could go back and forth with evidence, no doctrine or dogma required. And since religions make a statement of existence, the burden of proof lies with them.
I say, if we have to have Christians, which realistically we have to come to terms with (in our lifetime), let's have this guy. But, let's keep him out of politics and education, please.
@Freethinker12341 I am a Christian and I totally agree, I just didn't really understand your point but I do now... Amen =)
i like the way lennox speaks about his adversaries, he says nothing he wouldn't say to them in person.
can't say that about every adversary of the "four horsemen of the COUNTERapocalypse"...
Most scientists these days are not religious.
But this hasn't always been the case.
Newton dabbled with magic.
As far as inventing a tire, I tire is needed for a car and for cars we need alloys and alloys were used in swords and armor, horseback riding was the norm, someone in future could use your argument and say "during the 1000 years after they went to the moon they couldn't even invent a flying car" you know why? there's no need, nor do we have the understanding of materials enough to do that yet, carbon dating dates the earth at 4.54 billion years along every other form of dating.
@3209486 The closet atheist comment was in reference to a person (you? I can't find the message I was responding to) that said none of the psycho atheist dictators were very public with their atheism. You comment "the relativity you place between communism and Islam is irrelevant" I have no idea what you are talking about. Even if I knew the context, that sentence is very confusing. What is relativity between 2 things?
is he saying god never ordered genocide in the bible?
@mjhallfs But more so, I'd ignore most claims and go for the core: What are the main claims and what separates them. Generally most religious claims tend to be illogical from the get go (although atheists tend to hit at the wrong point).
Also, when I refer to logic, I am talking in the terms of (A=A), not, 'Susie thought it was so illogical that she would wear heels tonight'.
It's ironic that Sam Harris uses philosophy to reject it...
@GiantSandles The problem with that? AAAAHHHH. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to continue our back and forth, just write over email. This youtube reply thing is very irritating.
In addition, I was making the point that most of the christians I've spoken with don't really know their bible and it's sad that I have to point out their lack of understanding of their own religious book...Again, I agree with you...Maybe I should have explained it a little better...my apologies...
OK,...where can I find the so called "debate"?
@gneisenau321 I just read that the Amalekites where known for their vineyards, you can't carry those around on a camel. Vineyards requires land, argriculture, water, farming. So obviously they weren't all nomads.
Atheism may lead to certain people committing acts of evil, but the difference is - as Dawkins says - there isn't any logical pathway to be found between atheism and horrific acts. It's very easy to find one between religion (or at least the 'big three) and these acts.
Stalin for example was more influenced by his political ideology than his atheism (if he was even influenced by that at all).
@SOAS007
Plate tectonics exist. I don't deny what we can show. I'm just saying that I don't believe millions of years of plate tectonics created all the mountains, but that the flood shows that they were created very rapidly. The water is in all the oceans. The mountains really started growing when the floodwaters were receding, so the water didn't have to be as high as the highest mountains we know now.
I'm not sure. It was probably a miracle, so science may not be able to explain it all
Why are you assuming His self understanding wasn't divine? Just because he never said "I am God?" That's at best an argument from silence.
@vespine
The point is that neither necessarily "directly" lead to people doing evil deeds. To use your example of stamp collecting, if stamp collectors can attempt to force people to stamp collect, then "Aphiletists" can attempt to "put an end to the terrible abomination of stamp collecting," the "opium of the people" and so on.
Um. I've met more than one atheist who believes that the idea of the universe coming from nothing is more probable than the existence of a God who created it. So, if you don't believe that then how would you say the universe started? Was all the energy, matter, natural laws, etc. just always there? Or do you think it came from somewhere?
It is incredible that even a smart man as John Lennox, dont realise that atheism in it self can't be blamed for the evils done in history.
Atheism is a not a believe, it's the rejection of a believe, and can therefore not motivate any actions by it self. Actions come from believes, not from nonbelieves. To do evil you need a positive believe, like religions are evil and needs to be destroyed. But that is an additional believe and is not inherent in the concept of atheism.
@SOAS007
Eh, I'm not sure if I get your point, but maybe I can answer.
The Messiah had to be a descendant of David. Luke gives us the bloodline, and Matthew the legal (royal) line. The legal line is traced through the fathers and indicates that Jesus possesses the right to be king/Messiah, because Joseph was His legal father. Jesus' bloodline is traced through Mary, because Jesus didn't have the blood of Joseph, because of the virgin birth.
A challenge to all Christians: Have you proven all the other gods (of all the other religions) wrong?
@SOAS007
Nah it's not because the message is contradictory to the rest of the NT. I think a lot of scholars (mostly secular if you ask me) reject it as Paul's work just because of the use of greek and because of the themes. But to be honest with you I don't think those arguments are strong enough for me to reject the fact that it opens with "Paul,..., to Timothy". The differences in language and themes can be easily explained by the fact that he didn't write to a community, but to a "student"
@vincentjdrummer "The mountains really started growing when the floodwaters were receding, so the water didn't have to be as high as the highest mountains we know now.
"
so the high pressure water appeared, then as the water receded ( to where) montains were suddenly appearing by unknown means .. What about all the mountains that already existed and were populated, did the water go up them. There is no evidence for any of this BTW.!
@MomoTheBellyDancer I checked the definition of mutation and you're right. I thought you couldn't call it mutation if you changed cells with your own hands. I'm too used to mutation being a random thing that happens.
I take that back, but my argument remains; there's intelligence behind genetic modification. You can't simply make a parallel to humans controlling mutation and mutation being some natural force. You have to prove mutations can be beneficial on their own merit