That's how lectures work. The person holding the lecture always has the last word, so when there's a discussion like this where someone proves something wrong that Turek said, he can just insist on his authority to assert that he said nothing wrong.
... He doesn't remember the Kennedy assassination. He remembers what his family has told him. Family will tell you stories over and over again until it's impossible to tell if its real or not. There's some things I remember, vaguely, but earlier than 3 is a mystery.
What are the chances there is/was a photograph of "his mother when she was 26" floating around his family somewhere? And that he was shown it because it was around the time that event happened? He's so clueless.
I'm just old enough to remember the Kennedy assassination, the reason I remember it is because news coverage interrupted my afternoon cartoons. Just like this guy's mother I was crying although in my case it was because I wanted to see Huckleberry hound
@@AldousHuxleysCat If all it meant to you was interrupting your chance to watch cartoons, something that happens quite a lot at that age, it seems unlikely you'd remember that specific time. Rather, it sounds like exactly what we're talking about: your family repeatedly told you the story of that event, including you crying about cartoons, so now you "remember" it.
One thing that annoys me to no end about most people is they don't actually care about facts. They just believe whatever they want to believe regardless of reality because it's easier.
@@suicune2001 More likely they believe (or claim to believe) what other people want them to. We've had a minimum of thousands of years where that was the most effective survival strategy.
I also notice people don’t like to be wrong or feel any discomfort. I can’t blame them for the latter, but it’s only temporary. Just admit you were wrong; it seems the vast majority of the time, people forget and move on anyhow. Just take the opportunity to learn and grow.
11:41 To me the central problem with this argument is that Jesus rising from the dead was not an impact event. Nobody witnessed it. It was inferred from other evidence.
7:34 As usual, Frank makes claims with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, and direct evidence shows he is absolutely wrong. It really takes a vacant mind to believe in this kind of apologist nonsense.
@@wilhelmschmidt7240 But not unfalsible. He claimed he was with someone on 9/11. If they could be found and interviewed before Frank can collaborate with them. That would be interesting.
As someone for whom psych is a special interest, with memory being a core and fundamental aspect of that, it is really nice to actually see Turek being faced with this information, as much as he is unfortunately unlikely to ever actually process it.
Memory is affected by an interrogator’s questions: an example being the smash or tinkle question when asking about an accident involving glass breaking. The interrogator’s framing of the question directly affects the witness’s memory of the event. Insurance scams rely on this
I have a vivid memory of watching the news coverage of the 9/11 attacks in my third grade classroom. I can recall telling this story several times throughout my teenage years and young adulthood. I’m 32 now, and just a couple years ago, I was recounting the story to my wife when my mom interrupted to remind me that I was actually in fourth grade at the time. I still have this extremely vivid memory, even though I know logically that it’s untrue. Yet I would still swear it is if only the math added up.
The thing I find amusing at Frank's attempt at are argument to "prove" the resurrection is that it fails to do anything of the sort. 1) As this video pointed out, Frank's central premise of "impact memories" being more reliable is false. His insisting that his memory of his family after the JFK assassination being clear in no way means that it is accurate. 2) Then there is the issue of how few Gospel writers could have actually been witnesses in the first place. 3) His argument also commits a Begging the Question Fallacy by assuming that a resurrection was actually witnessed in the first place. 4) As 9/11 showed, people who were witnesses still made claims that were false. How many were lies, misremembering, delusions, etc.? We will never know, but they're still wrong even if they say they are certain about what they saw.
We had guys like this show up at my school. I can't remember vividly what they talked about, but I do remember one guy making the argument that the universe needed to have a beginning and he snuck in that Evolution was impossible because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I remember a lot of hesitancy among the college students there in accepting that. I also remember afterwards lots of guys coming up with things they wish they had thought to say. The thing with these professional apologists is they rely on their strong arm tactic of having lots of experience with the topic, and with their ability to change goalposts, in winning the moment even if they lose the argument. "Oh sure, they might miss out on some of the little details, but they won't forget that they were witnesses to an actual resurrected Jesus." Yeah, that's the real argument though, Frank ... were they eyewitnesses, or do they believe that eyewitnesses existed becuase they were told they did? The majority of Christians in all of history, nearly 100% of them, learned the claims of Christianity from a book or a preacher. Frank Turek is only aware of Christianity from books or from preachers. He has no connection to any eyewitness. Yeah but never mind actual memory studies, he's sure he knows exactly where he was and what he was doing when he was 2 years old, not becuase he saw his mother crying one time (which is not very impactful tbh, unless that is the only time she ever cried about anything ever, and probably not even then), but because it was the imapct event that people older than him once used as an icebreaker question. In truth, he is telling an old family story that his parents told him, maybe his older siblings "You were patting her on the back saying "it's ok mommy, don't cry ... it was so cute), a story repeated often enough that he came to believe it over time. Wow Frank is either deliberately dishonest, or he genuinely is so buried in the faith stuff and winning the moment that he genuinely did not understand the memory study the student was referencing. The student was forced into being polite, another apologist tactic, so that he acknowledged little things like sure, maybe Frank actually remembers the Kennedy assassination (from when he was 2 years old) and where he was on 9/11, even though the studies show that many people do not remember these events as well as they think they do. Through repetition and subtle bullying, Frank gets the student to allow that "sure, maybe your memories are pinpoint accurate and not to be questioned, but what you are saying about the meories of people in general are not." Well done, Jake. You did better than most people when talking to the guy on stage show has the support of most of the room. Anyway on to the nature of the original example. It is a form of Watchmaker Argument. He takes a thing that the majority ofthe people in the world agree happened, for which there is video footage that ran for years of the cleanup and the eventual construction of One World Trade Center. Some theorists aside, the world generally agrees that the video footage is accurate, that planes really did crash into those buildings and those buildings really did come down. Then he compares that event with the filmed assassination of John Kennedy, something many people in the audience will have seen. He says yes, people who witnessed these events will accurately remember them. What he skips is that the memories of the people of those events, accurate or inaccurate, will be detailed based on whether those events actually happened. IFJesus resurrected, and IF there were eyewitnesses, and IF those eyewitnesses wrote their own experiences down in their own words, THEN yeah, MAYBE we would have an argument for people remembering "impact events," as he calls them. But unlike 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination, we don't have any reason to believe that this dude actually returned from the dead. Just like the Watchmaker analogy (which supposes that the universe is designed as one of its propositions in proving that the universe was designed), Frank presupposed the reality of the event before considering the accuracy of the testimony. Just like the Watchmaker analogy, which takes a thing known to have been deigned in order to argument that the universe, more compliacted than a watch, must also have been desingned, Frank's 9/11 argument goes from the memories of an event we all agree happened to the memory of an event we do not all agree happened. All so he can argue the "accuracy" of a stoiry that gets more embellished in each of the five times it is told in the bible (chronologically, in 1 Corinthians, then in Mark, then in Matthew, then in Luke, then in John).
Turek can not agree with the study because it would force him to question a whole lot of other things about what he's spend years and years of preaching around. Turek made the easy choice of looking for excuses to not do so, which is very prevalent behaviour amongst apologists! It's less work and less impactful on his ego.
Interesting. I know exactly where I was and what I was doing when I learned of the attacks on 9/11. This is only because I was working for the US Forest Service and I watched the 2nd plane hit live on tv in the lobby of a hotel with my co-worker.
So I have to say I remember where I was when I was told Kennedy was shot. I was at school 4th grade and our teacher told us Kennedy was shot, but whether he said shot, or killed I don't remember. What we did after that, I don't remember, all I remember is being at school and being told by our teacher. The only other significant snapshot memory. I was 2-3 yo, very afraid and running to my mother. My mom told me it was an earthquake, though I don't actually remember the earthquake itself, just an image of me running and very afraid. For me snapshot memory is generally a like a snapshot, a brief or single images, and very strong emotions tied to the images. Pretty much any memory I have that is longer and more detailed, will have some fact, i.e. the Twin Towers collapsing and maybe one or two other facts, but the rest is unreliable. Frank picked a good example, since a lot of people actually remember the Towers fell, and then segues to the Kennedy assassination which only a few people in his audience being alive when that happened. He then provided a very detailed snapshot "memory" leaving the audience to believe it was accurate and that snapshot memories are completely reliable.
I once told the story of Jim Lovell's flight by algae light as told in Apollo 13 as my neighbors story _(he was part of an aircraft crew in Vietnam)._ Fortunately, someone noticed and pointed it out, and I immediately realized I was conflating the two _(my neighbor had a story about a time they accidentally flew over enemy anti-air, but managed to turnabout before being noticed)._ This is why I double check things I know I know, because I know I might not know it. I know what I am Frank, a moist machine that utilizes low power fuzzy logic. I don't remember perfectly, just sufficiently, because evolution is true. Frank needs to listen to more public radio, there was an episode, I think from RadioLab, about how we form memories from stories others tell us. The guy doing the story realized this when he examined his earliest memory, and knew he couldn't remember when he got a nail in his head as an under one year old. It was just a story he heard all his life, and turned into a memory. Frank, if you can spin a cow in your mind, you can fabricate memories, even on accident.
Turek: "Lots of people seeing an 'impact event' means it must be true." OK, Frank, then when multitudes saw Muhammad split the moon that certainly would be an impact event so it must be true, right? Oh, wait, you mean it only counts when it's your belief system? Bzzt! Special Pleading Fallacy, Frank. You fail, thanks for playing!
Jake: "Scientific studies show that a person's confidence in their ability to remember is disproportionate-people misremember details, even for flashbulb events." Frank: "Well, I'm sure I remember correctly, so the studies are wrong." Me: 😐
The fact that Frank uses an anecdote from his own memory at 2 years and 2 days. There is strong experimental evidence to suggest that memories from this age are highly likely to be false memories, with likelihood increasing if there is some important socially relevant narrative (like a major cultural moment in politics, just to pluck a random example) which forms part of the memory. So not only is Turek completely, and comically, missing the point, he is using an anecdotal memory which is the least likely to hold any actual accuracy! He's a moron!
@@hissupremecorrectfulnessre9478 and he is one of the worst Christian apologists. Seriously he is just abysmal this is just horrible. I have memories I know are false. I vividly remember my TV exploding ripping out my brother’s eye and looking out of the window to see the streets engulfed in flames them running down stairs in my building house and falling asleep in the car. None of this happened. The TV was fine, my brother was fine, and I woke up in my bedroom that was just burnt to ashes as I can remember happening. Most people have memories like this but either they resolved them as clearly false or still believe them in spite of reality. My dad has four of them my mom and I find kind of commercial because of how wrong they are.
The more I've seen you and Paulogia cover Frank Turek, the less mind boggling I think anything he does is. Hes just, not that smart of a guy, plus a dishonest guy. Used car salesman stereotype. Hes never gonna move up to selling new cars.
Student: the studies have been done. People are convinced they know where they were that day Frank: yeah, but take me for example: I'M convinced I know where I was that day
instead of "he´s too dumb to understand the study he was explained moments prior" there´s a different way to interpret the response Turek gave. He might have tried to take control of the situation by forcing the kid into the uncomfortable position of having to directly accuse him (an older person in a position of power) of being stupid or a liar. In other words, it might not have been stupidity, but a manipulative bitch move.
Frank I think is one of the most obviously bad faith actors in the Christian scene. I wouldn't be surprised if his faith is just a fake front for his gross political beliefs. He is so clearly anti-intellectual at every turn and never modified or course corrects when repeatedly told objective falsehoods. He gets on my nerves more than most anyone else because of this. Because to me it seems so flagrant that he is a dishonest actor.
@@HidinginPublic A good example of someone who appears to refuse to learn new things, as if he knows everything he needs to know. The very definition of Anti-intellectual (unless I'm wrong - because not only am I willing to learn, but It's also one of my favorite activities). Grow or decay.
I feel you, it’s the same way with the political vids I watch. But I listen/watch for the engagement so the channels can still benefit. Hard to watch though I agree.
@@JasonHenderson Debatable. Some apologists might know how dishonest they're being, but more and more I'm forced to wonder how many of them don't even let their brain come into contact with their behaviour, how much of it is just mindlessly following the steps to a brainless little dance. Step _two three_ lie _two three_ if we come from monkeys _two three_ herpaderpa monkeys _two three_ pivot aaaand _jazz hands._ Repeating the same stupid lies, saying the same stupid catchphrases, it looks more and more like they're just doing MadLibs from a template.
@@EdwardHowton some of them could be this way. But not Frank, and not Jimmy. Especially not Jimmy. He knows he's lying. And their other buddy Lee strobel. I believe guys like wlc honestly believe it, Jordan Peterson, the more philosophical guys. But those three, no way they don't know life they are lying
"I am a psychologist. I'm an expert in human behavior and the inner motivations and deterrents of people." "I'm a doctor. I'm an expert at human development and healthcare." "I'm an astrophysicist. I'm an expert on the movement of matter and energy in the universe." "Well, I'm a xtian apologist. I'm an expert in everything." 🙄
you should use physician rather than doctor here. all of those other disciplines and including chiropractors and dentist are doctors. all physicians are doctors but not all doctors are physicians. PHDs are doctors for example.
@@joe5959 . Do you have an example? Christian apologists are dishonest every time they claim there is evidence for their God, Their arguments always come down to special pleading.
Why is Frank trying to say that there is any unambiguous eyewitness testimony about the resurrection in the Bible? The only person who gives any personal testimony is paul, and Paul didn't see the resurrection. All the other parts of the Gospel are written anonymously and decades after the fact, how does he claim that is eyewitness testimony?
It's a claim I hear a lot, yet not one eye witness testimony had even been claimed to exist in the bible. It's massive levels of cope and self deception.
He's a biblical liberalist. If he accepts that traditional authorship or early dating for the gospels could be church tradition then he is going to at least be open to the fact maybe the resurrection (or basically the entire NT) is church tradition. If it's not eyewitness testimony than his buddies Jimmy Wallace and Lee's Strobel's whole shtick falls apart.
Yes these apologists use the same tactics and always portray themselves as the experts on everything. They just can't see themselves as being wrong about anything.
Frank's job is to be right, no matter what. If he is seen as wrong it would effect his reputation and bottom line imo. He can't admit he's doesn't know. It's a business 1st. He's just one of the salemen.
Why do people refuse to accept data contrary to their claims, instead choosing to double down. I''ll bet he doesn't discontinue this argument in future seminars.
Well, also remember he's s creationist. His ilk of Christianity is actually VERY anti science. They go along with science when it's convenient. It's not "science agrees on x, so I think x" it's "I believe x regardless of science, but I'll tout the science if I think it supports me, even though it has no bearing on what I believe"
_very_ condescending when he misses the point, "so you _really_ think people wouldn't remember the two towers getting hit?" when that's clearly not what the dispute was. as if the student were going to turn around and say yes actually, the study shows that people will actually tend to remember there being five or six towers and no footage has ever been shown on the news ever, wow mr turek you sure steelmanned my position really well there sir. turek is the type of apologist who barely understands the surface level of whats going on and takes a very smug self-unctuous attitude about it.
Somebody should call Frank out. The first time he said November 23rd the second time he said November 22nd. I'd bet he'd have, at least, a moment of doubt.
See I thought it was the 23rd, the same night as the very first episode of Doctor Who, but I just checked, it was the 22nd. Guess I misremembered this impact event but I'd been so confident I wasn't misremembering this entire time
@@NoStringsAttachedPrd it was Friday evening in the UK. Dr Who debuted the next day but the TV was dominated by Kennedy that day and few watched it so it was reshown a week later.
The chances that Frank remembers the Kennedy assassination at the age of two is absurd. His mom telling him over and over again that he must remember this traumatic experience is a much more likely scenario.
Not to mention the cultural impact of the event leading to the widespread claim that everyone can “remember where they were when they heard Kennedy was shot”
@@CharlieNoodlesalso my dad remembers being taken out of school by the local panther party when MLK jr was assassinated. That’s one that absolutely stuck in the consciousness of black folks in this country.
He's also using 'remember where you were on 9/11' (23 years ago) to college students (18-22 years old) Edit: Just reached the point in the video where Turek says it was 22 years ago, so must be last year's video.
@@JoshuaRed-v4f I'm not saying he's saying something reasonable. At all. I'm saying that compared to his other claims, this one is way more reasonable. I'm saying his main claims as an apologist are so unreasonable that they make this 2yo claim seem reasonable.
He remembers what happened and what he said to his mother .. 60years ago when he was 2?!! I call BS .. I am willing to wager he remembers what his family and possibly what his mother told him he probably said to her .. and chances are that wasn't the same story everytime
Turek “knows” what happened because that’s what his mother told him when he asked about it later in his life. He visualized it. Maybe even dreamt it. Same with bibble stories. We’re asking him to scrutinize the details more carefully and he’s a proud boy. How dare we question his account of his own life.
Not to mention he’s heard stories from others who went through it and could be just copying those stories onto his own. Kind of like how everyone is expected to be sad at a funeral or happy at a wedding.
The odds that his vocabulary would allow him to say that are slim to none. He almost certainly is remembering what people have said to him much later in life.
Student: "hey studies show your 9/11 example is about as wrong as can be, personal confidence goes up as factual accuracy does down" Turek: "But i remember 9/11 perfectly"
He doesn't realize that his own high confidence in his memory doesn't provide ANY additional credibility to it. He seems to think that false memories would be foggy or uncertain, like trying to remember a dream.
@@fluffyllama1505 That's the story: some people think that being sure about something is enough to make that something true. In the end, it is narcissism, the inability of seeing oneself being wrong.
@@rampagingibex3181 Interesting. It's as if the 'belief' is what 'makes' the thing true. Maybe that's the reason I seem to rarely see an apologist from one religion arguing that another religion is false. I used to think it was because those arguments would likely work equally well against their own religion (so they avoid it). When considering that if one accepts that the 'belief itself' is what somehow forces reality into being that way, I can see someone with the position that "well since they believe those things, it true for them" (as if there is no testable, shared reality - or less of it somehow). Instead, to me, this is the obvious issue - that with the existence any two religions with convinced believers of mutually exclusive claims - someone MUST in fact be wrong, I therefore believe none of it. When I point this out to religion A (for example), inevitably they "zoom out" to some larger picture where "the existence of so many religions must be pointing to something", and in their mind somehow this validates their particular religion (I am unsure how). Instead, this indicates to me "wait for more concrete evidence before spending my life either genuflecting, bowing to the East 7 times per day, speaking in tongues, going door-to-door, wearing this or that funny hat (or holy underwear), avoiding this or that safe food or safe consensual sex act, aligning chakras, hating this or that group of people, differing thought crimes, etc. - all the while dishonestly claiming to value the 'truth'. The claims I like are testable - ones that all should agree on, like: "If there is an intact, functional, average brick wall that remains as such before, during and after our test, we should all agree, one cannot walk 'directly through the bricks' to the back side of it without altering that brick wall. Instead, one would have to go over, around, damage/remove it, etc. to walk to the back side". If people could, that would reduce the use count of brick walls (they're also decretive/structural). There are enough of these testable, far more useful, fascinating - and agreed upon claims, that to learn them all would fill several lifetimes and more discoveries every day (and I enjoy learning), so why would I waste my time on any untestable claim?
His story only reinforces the student's point about influence on memory. He was alive when it happened, he's likely had conversations about it with family, friends,etc., of course mother's NEVER exaggerate, he's seen news/videos/print about the incident, and his mother likely told him at one point in his life about how she felt when watching it on tv...... his story is the amalgamation of all that.
Even according to the Bible, most people didn't SEE Jesus risen anyway, and they were never interviewed about it, there was no way to do that. The premise doesn't make sense to begin with.
Excellent point. Turek describes the resurrection as an event like 9/11 which was televised around the world. As you say, there are only a small number of anecdotal accounts of the risen Jesus. Turek tries to infer that the gospels, with the exception of Luke, are eye witness accounts. We know none of them were, and even though Luke says he is compiling accounts, he doesn't cite any direct witnesses. Paul throws in the 500 people that saw Jesus post resurrection, saying they have not all passed, hinting that they could be sought out and asked about it. He hasn't apparently bothered to do that however, and we can pretty much dismiss this as just an unsubstantiated claim. The resurrection of Jesus would be no more than a claim made by a small number of people that grew in legend. There was no impact event. No Monday morning newspaper with headlines proclaiming rebel rousing preacher rises from the dead following Roman execution. Of course, only 40 days later Jesus is gone for good anyway. Turek thinks that the Resurrection was the biggest event in the history of the world, but fails to realise it would not have seemed so then. That is assuming it actually happened, rather a just myth developing.
There were exactly...Zero Eyewitnesses to Jesus actually rising from the dead. An eyewitness is someone who says "I (their name)personally saw Jesus rise from the dead." Paul's experience was a vision...years later.
@@GameDay516 There's not even a claim of witnessing a resurrection. If we accepted seeing a physical person alive, then that would put his death into question, not prove a resurrection.
Yeah - fun fact, the gospels contain not one example of eyewitness accounts (ie "I, Simon Peter, saw Jesus walk on water in a storm."). All of it is third person pov (ie "Then Mary went to the tomb and ran away again.").
My favorite "impact event" is Olof Palme. The Swedish prime minister who was k.lled in broad daylight on a busy street in 1986. Since then, no fewer than 36 witnesses have come forward with wildly varying details about what happened, and it's very likely it hampered the investigation.
Missing people cases always have to deal with those phantom eyewitness. Some studies make a correlation between how mediatic is a case and the number of eyewitness.
I predict Turek will eventually stop doing Q and A sessions. Similar to the way Steven Crowder no longer does “change my mind” segments. It’s easy to appear to win an argument when people are unfamiliar with the dishonest tactics you use, and manipulative word games. Once people catch on and show up as prepared as you are it becomes much harder.
The truly hilarious thing is that Frank is arguing that 500 fictitious people would have had a perfect memory of Jesus rising from the dead. He not only cannot verify their memories - he can't verify their existence. But you can't expect him to see clearly when his head is that far up his own arse
Frank is pretty skilled at misdirection and his position on stage with an audience of college students makes him seem like he is in control. Good thing there are UA-camrs like Paul who call out Frank’s bullshit for all of us to see.
I just mentioned the 911 event to my wife. I told her that I remember getting home from work, getting to bed and having a light breakfast while watching the news. . She said, "no, you sat in the kitchen and ate a lot while watching the news.". . So now, I'm in doubt on who's right. There's a chance that maybe, neither.
I hate to be that guy in this scenario but I definitely remember what I was doing. I was late for school (more than usual) and my father was the one who first told me about it because the first smoking tower was on live television in the family room. I also remember seeing the second tower get hit a few minutes after and I can clearly recall this due to the difference in time zones.
Probably a mixture a simple thing would be thinking of what you usually do. The exact location is more based on yourself, but from some basic understanding you may have gotten a large amount of food and eaten little due to the news but again I only saying large amount of food because people tend to have fixation on certain odd aspects that are out of character or unusual.
@@BleedForTheWorld Most people remember exactly what they were doing. The thing is, a lot of those people are wrong. That has been scientifically proven. I also remember exactly, in vivid detail, what I was doing. The thing is, it's virtually impossible to know whether my memories are correct or not. I'm sure they are. But so is everyone else whose memories are demonstrably false.
I'm fairly confident in my memory of where I was and what I was doing, but that is partly because I don't think I experienced much that would have influenced that memory. I am also well aware of memories that I believed accurate, and later learned were artificial. It is true, that impactful events are more likely to cement a memory. But I think that means that it was the impactful event cemented, not secondary details. So while I am confident of remembering where I was, I am not at all confident on my memory on secondary details. I am pretty sure I was first alerted about 9/11 events by a specific coworker I knew fairly well, but I no longer recall his name.
Fun fact: I have had memories I knew in real time as I recalled them as false. Your brain does this with stress. I have several times not purchased an item that I only bought in a dream. I have been getting items from the store recalling having them so hours ago but the time I did prior I was on the moon and dreaming. I have caught this in real-time buying the items I actually don't have.
@@Specialeffecks Definitely, for instance when Frank says the impact event is easy to remember he is not wrong. I hate when I launch myself about a half a mile to my house but forget to flip my cart over and now I have to wait for the cheese to land back in my yard. I know what that feels like despite never having done it.
"Okay well we'd have to look at those studies because personal experience does not bear that out." I'm glad the video was almost over at this point, because I don't think I could take much more
The fact that Frank is entirely unaware of the studies that directly contradict his narrative tells me that he is more interested in promoting his narrative than he is of learning the actual truth.
Yeah, the studies are literally _about_ personal experience and they show that memories for personal experiences, and the personal experience of being confident in those memories, are _not_ reliable. That doesn't mean they're always wrong, just that you can't rely on them - you (ideally) need external, independent, objective corroboration. Which there's none of for anything in the Gospel mythos.
Mandala effect is quite interesting. But regarding the Darth Vader quote, part of the blame goes to comics framing the line that way to ensure the audience recognizes the reference material. By including Luke's name along with the deep voice, is more effective than the actual line, because you risk the audience not immediately recognize the movie, and the joke would flop.
It's hilarious that Frank describes that guy, who was clearly trying and suceeding to be respectul, as a provocateur. Frank fits that label much better.
The "how did I say it wrongly" is so disingenuous. It's such a ridiculous "if you can't repeat me verbatim from a conversation you we were having 5 minutes ago then your point is not valid". It is the last retreat of the liar and the fraud and so transparent.
It's so slimy. Guy turns up and cites a study on how people misremember details but feel confident they have remembered right. Turek shifts goalposts to "do you _really_ think people wouldn't remember that the two towers got hit?" as if the news footage hasn't been repeating on tv for decades. The student responds that that's not what's he's specifically responding to, Turek says "yes it is." Student tries again to specify, and yeah Turek requires the student quote verbatim what he had said however long back it had been since he'd said it, and ends with fobbing off the studies on how people will misremember things while still feeling they are remembering correctly because Turek feels too strongly like he remembers correctly. Like lol yeah you may have a study I haven't seen, but I feel like I'm right anyway so- and the Frank brings the footage up in a video being all "woow look at this provocateur, trying to cause trouble by bringing up his _studies"_
@christophersandford5888, not sure how I feel about how you more less suggesting Franky is a liar and a fraud. You’re being to harsh on liars and frauds. They’re typically not as bad as frank “waste of flesh” turek.
@HolisterX hmm, that's a hard one. I would agree there are definitely scales of "bad" to "worse" in these traits, however I'm not convinced that, specifically as a liar and fraud, Turek is much worse than many other liars and frauds. Where I would probably agree that he is worse than many liars and frauds is that he is also a bigot, and he uses his lies to spread and persist his bigotry, and to convince others to do the same. In this way I would agree; he is pretty despicable.
I was in American History class when I saw the news report after the South Tower had been hit. If you asked me which news channel we were watching, it was probably CNN although I could have that wrong. You asked me who the teacher for my class was, all I could remember was he was some coach, but not which sport he coached or what his last name was. It is amazing how I can remember something that was heavily reinforced with multiple news stories and documentaries of the event over the years, but can’t recall details that I wasn’t constantly being reminded of over the same time.
Exactly! Even eye witnesses to a crime slowly change their story over time and aren't aways reliable sources despite being direct witnesses. Any source that isn't written contemporaneously is subject to bias, changed memories, and all sorts of other quirky human brain stuff. Heck, even the most instant and direct witness is always bias because everyone has their own perspective.
I was in AP Calculus when we got the news. I also distinctly remember a girl in our band class coincidentally wearing a rhinestone NYC shirt with the Twin Towers on it that day. Though I'm also pretty sure that memory is fake and I only "remember" it because she **did** have a shirt like that. Just wasn't necessarily wearing it that day.
Yes our brainstorming are quite flexible about its own Memoiren and is very happy to hear slightly different versions of the Story to "correct " our own internal memories.
@@DaveB-hg7el yeah i remember the amazing food and snacks my grandma made. She could make anything taste amazing. Now that is what's worth remembering. Not the sad day.
@@tonyolsson3880 Yes, I agree completely. I remember my grandfather's generosity and kindness. I also was taught how to bake by my grandmother, which became my career. Thanks, peace 💚
Goodness, Frank Turek is so obnoxious in this. He’s blatantly wrong, struggles to see how he’s wrong, shifts the goalposts, and childishly claims that his personal experiences trump research. What a piece of work.
We're also comparing probably one of the most heavily documented events in history to some stories that got passed around 2000 years ago. There really isn't a comparison. The gravity of the claims matters too. Me thinking I had Raisin Bran instead of Cheerios the morning of 9/11 isn't consequential like someone rising from the dead.
I'm guessing all the Elvis sighting of him back from the dead happened in a time when most people knew better. 2000 years ago, apparently this was more easily believed - as stories of Lazarus, Jesus, "bodies of many saints were raised and seen by many people" made it into the book many years after hearing similar stories being shared (embellished enough for the next person to even listen and then even retell). This happened verbally over and over for 20 years before the version being told at that time arrived at the author, who decided it was good enough (or he was just superstitious enough) - with maybe only a few of his own tweaks to show off his writing skills - to write it down because people seem to like these stories, and someone may even read it. I'm sure the author had no idea that out of all the random stories told of the time - his would be the one to turn into a popular set of religions so many years later! (One of them had to be 'the one that boiled to the top' - from that culture).
Frank literally shows he goes with facts over feelings. He knows where he was. Everyone else knows where they were. He just feels this is true. The fact that we've shown this is false doesn't impact him at all. Facts > Feelings Sorry Frank
Okay, Frank. I thought your whole reason for existing was to teach us the gospel, you don't want us to ask you questions though? You claim to have access to an all-knowing deity. Your accuracy on these subjects should be beyond human comprehension but it is infantile.
I have been waiting to see some student do this to apologists. I mean, we are talking first year university psychology here. Nice to see him flustered at least.
That's the demand of apologists by believers (regardless of what the apologist may personally accept - or even had lost their faith). The benefit any believer perceives from their religion only requires their acceptance, not that the claim is verifiably/demonstrably true (therefore, core claims often unfalsifiable). After all, to believe = great reward, not to believe = severe penalty. So, they ONLY focus on the confirming, however flimsy, and always away from the 'scary' disconfirming - however solid, logical and/or even rigorously tested.
Apropos unreliable accounts, unlike the other Gospels, in the original Gospel of Mark, the oldest gospel, there was no account of Jesus meeting anyone or being seen by anyone after his body goes missing from his tomb.
Moreover, in the Synoptic Gospels, Mary Magdalene and other women go to the tomb. In John's account, Mary Magdalene goes alone. In Matthew, Jesus appears to the women before they tell the disciples. In John, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene first; after she reports to the disciples. In Matthew and Mark one angel appears; in Luke and John there are two angels. In Matthew, the women tell no one of what they had seen. Sounds like a case of a body going missing and then everyone making up a resurrection and fabricating accounts of having seen angels and spoken to Jesus to fit the narrative. That is if the entire thing is not made up to start with.
The problem with the 9/11 comparison Frank is making is that we all know about this because it's well-documented. I'd like to see him say the same thing about the miracle of the Sun at Fatima. Thousands of people claimed to witness the Sun move and dance about in the sky, with some claiming to see Mary in the sky. According to Frank those people can't be mistaken. Sure they may get details about that day wrong but they can't be wrong that the son moved around erratically in the sky or that Mary appeared in the sky.
Anyone with an elementary knowledge of cognitive development would call bullshit on Frank Turek. He just spews "common sense" that has been scientifically debunked.
9/11 happened when I was 6, when I was 14 I had an English assignment to write a paper about where I was when I learned about 9/11. I wrote about coming home from school and telling my mom about 9/11, I wrote that she was asleep when I got home and I had to wake her up. My mom found the essay later and told me that none of that was correct at all and I essentially made it all up. She said she picked me up from school that day. It was enlightening to realize that my memory could be that confident and be totally wrong. I don't think people that are confident in their memories are better at remembering, they're just more confident. I wish I was in the audience when Frank Turek made that comment because I specifically have direct evidence against that dumb argument.
If people would just bother to learn about how the brain works and makes up memories, perhaps they would be less prone to claim that they remember something happened exactly how they describe it.
That’s my earliest memory, I was 3 years old. My mom was frantic “They killed the president!” But of course I don’t remember anything else, just my mom’s total upset, could have been the “president “ of Uganda.
Not a flashbulb memory, but a trivial bit of memory fallibility: I heard writer Dan Wells on a podcast describe that his writer friends have a shorthand for telling you when you've foreshadowed your character's fate a little too hard: "he wants to live in Montana." It's a reference to _The Hunt for Red October,_ a navy officer in the middle of a tense situation describing his happy, peaceful plans for the future. To a modern audience, the message is clear: _Obviously this guy's gonna die._ Then, same podcast, several years later, he tells the exact same story, except now "he wants to live in Wyoming." And that really made me wonder. Obviously the detail is not important - the officer describes a rancher lifestyle that could happen in either state. But if Mr. Wells and his friends really use this reference and this phrase, how did such a bit-flip happen? (And I just checked the Internets. It was "Montana" in the film.)
I really can't stand the utter arrogance that is a necessary component of being an apologist. I'm pretty sure my memory of where I was when i found out about the 9/11 attacks is accurate. I can accept that Frank's is as well. But, to summarily dismiss the fact that there are studies on memory of that exact event - that he used as evidence for his eye witness claims - simply because he believes that his own memory is accurate.... It's infuriating. Studies have repeatedly shown that our memories are not as good as we beliebe them to be. New memories can be "created" during repetition and important points can be forgotten even as the overall arc of an event is remembered. But no. That doesn't support the view that Frank wants to convince people of, so the actual research must be wrong and anyone who brings it up is simply a provocateur. Sure Frank.
Well, you heard turek's answer. *He* is Sure he remembers well (just ignore the only thing he claimed to remember are things we have objective evidence for), so it totally also works for the gospels stories (for which we dont have objective evidence for).
*None of the 12 disciples saw Jesus' resurrection,* some probably were witnesses to his crucifixion, and then, some may have heard that he had risen from the women who visited his tomb, even though the actual story ends with *_"Frightened and Bewildered the women fled the tomb and told NO ONE of what they saw "_* which is how Mark wrote the story that he supposedly got from Peter, all the following Gospels add different versions to the Original from Mark, likely to fix the part of _"... And told no one of what they saw"_ at the end.
Frank, dude, you and I are the same age nearly to the day, so it should be no surprise that I too was at home with my mom on the day in question. And, I have a clear and detailed memory of that impactful day as well. Problem is, every detail is wrong. You see, I remember watching the coverage, but my mom says the t.v. wasn't even on, she didn't find out until later than most, and considerably later than my memory begins. Not only that, FRANK, but my very clear irrefutable memory of this impact event... occurs at a house my parents didn't buy until six months later. Classic Turek, not that smart sometimes, and unwilling to learn.
I know a lot of people believe the famous quote is "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn," but I checked the movie Clue, and it is "Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a damn." ;)
You know, you could theoretically find someone with a perfect memory who saw that film in the theater and have them tell you that line wasn't in the movie at all!
Frank is an example of the human brain overcoming cognitive dissonance and placing man made fiction above facts. When you empower this accomplishment with public speaking and self confidence you can convince anyone who is less skilled in this business. I would never waste my time arguing with Frank or anyone who looks like Frank.
I won't debate with anybody that brings their fairytale to a science debate. They are not there to be honest and they are not there to debate. They want publicity and a chance to prosyletize and demonize the opposition and not an opportunity to debate.
I predict Turek will eventually stop doing Q and A sessions. Similar to the way Steven Crowder no longer does “change my mind” segments. It’s easy to appear to win an argument when people are unfamiliar with the dishonest tactics you use, and manipulative word games. Once people catch on and show up as prepared as you are it becomes much harder.
Frank wants the impact event to be the resurrection but that's the event in question, the actual impact event for Jesus' family and disciples would be his death.
If the stories are to be believed, the empty tomb. Why is the empty tomb so prominent? Do you remember reports of planes off course? Mary doesn't seem to remember who was with her. Seems possible that the empty tomb was the only reported event for a while.
@@goldenalt3166 the earliest report we have is from Paul which gives no prominence to the empty tomp, according to Paul the natural body is perishable and unable to inherit the kingdom of God, only the spiritual body that is imperishable can inherit the kingdom. It would seem from Paul Jesus died, was buried, and was raised with a spiritual body. The later gospel accounts want to make it a physical resurrection.
@@wilkimist Yes, but Paul was not likely the source for gospel stories. It's possible the empty tomb was invented because the post resurrection appearances were highly disputed at Mark's time and they were already creating apologetics to explain why they knew he wasn't so dead. But you've got to ask, if there were witnesses to Jesus alive, why would anyone record an empty tomb? Ever hear of Elvis's empty tomb?
I was sleeping soundly and then heard my then wife screaming, "Wake up! We are under attack!" I came upstairs and saw the first tower had smoke billowing out of it. I have a science background. I had been thinking of a prior event where a major earthquake had hit Mexico City and a hospital had "pancaked" floor by floor. I knew that it was likely that the tower would not remain standing. And then the news came across that a second tower had been hit. I went for a smoke, and was beginning to have a lapse (I have these lapses which have grown to the point of debilitating me). I wasn't able to fully follow what was happening, but cognitively I knew that the towers were likely to collapse. And then I remember seeing the cascade of the collapse of the first building. It was difficult to focus what my eyes were seeing happening on television from the commentary of the newscasters who would simply not shut up. That is what makes stories hard to follow. Some people see what they are hearing and do not see what they are seeing. Sometimes people will tell you the story and it isn't always accurate. Yes, I could see the pancaking event and see the collapse of one tower and then the other. But I know what I saw. I remember all the speculation that was occuring already without knowing who caused it or why. Answers were being provided as to why well ahead of evidence. When events happen people begin to immediately form a narrative. This is more so with religious groups and political groups. The commentary begins immediately. If you wish to remain fair, and impartial, and if you care about justice and truth, see with your eyes. Do not see with your ears because you will be blinded.
"""Dr.""" Turek thinks that if he repeats the same thing that's being disputed louder and more confidently, it means that he's right... Insufferable.
That's how lectures work. The person holding the lecture always has the last word, so when there's a discussion like this where someone proves something wrong that Turek said, he can just insist on his authority to assert that he said nothing wrong.
I always preferred Turok, bro wasn't playing with them dinosaurs
Yeah - he's basically a bully.
... He doesn't remember the Kennedy assassination. He remembers what his family has told him. Family will tell you stories over and over again until it's impossible to tell if its real or not. There's some things I remember, vaguely, but earlier than 3 is a mystery.
Frank Turek is amazingly good at showing us that he is oblivious to his own cognitive failures.
This. Similar research has confirmed that the vast majority of "memories" before about age 3 are implanted by others, mostly family.
What are the chances there is/was a photograph of "his mother when she was 26" floating around his family somewhere? And that he was shown it because it was around the time that event happened? He's so clueless.
I'm just old enough to remember the Kennedy assassination, the reason I remember it is because news coverage interrupted my afternoon cartoons. Just like this guy's mother I was crying although in my case it was because I wanted to see Huckleberry hound
@@AldousHuxleysCat If all it meant to you was interrupting your chance to watch cartoons, something that happens quite a lot at that age, it seems unlikely you'd remember that specific time. Rather, it sounds like exactly what we're talking about: your family repeatedly told you the story of that event, including you crying about cartoons, so now you "remember" it.
One thing that annoys me to no end about most people is they don't actually care about facts. They just believe whatever they want to believe regardless of reality because it's easier.
@@suicune2001 More likely they believe (or claim to believe) what other people want them to. We've had a minimum of thousands of years where that was the most effective survival strategy.
@@goldenalt3166 That's true. People wouldn't want to rock the boat too much or else risk getting thrown out of the tribe, or worse.
@@suicune2001 As my dad liked to say, he came from a long line of people who couldn't resist having children.
Someone needs to tell them that facts don’t care about their feelings 😐
I also notice people don’t like to be wrong or feel any discomfort. I can’t blame them for the latter, but it’s only temporary. Just admit you were wrong; it seems the vast majority of the time, people forget and move on anyhow. Just take the opportunity to learn and grow.
11:41 To me the central problem with this argument is that Jesus rising from the dead was not an impact event. Nobody witnessed it. It was inferred from other evidence.
*THIS.* Thank you
Your level of confidence sounds just like the level of confidence of the biblical writers.
Kudos to that guy for bringing up that point!! It is NOT easy to speak in front of a big room like that.
7:34 As usual, Frank makes claims with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, and direct evidence shows he is absolutely wrong. It really takes a vacant mind to believe in this kind of apologist nonsense.
@@wilhelmschmidt7240 But not unfalsible. He claimed he was with someone on 9/11. If they could be found and interviewed before Frank can collaborate with them. That would be interesting.
As someone for whom psych is a special interest, with memory being a core and fundamental aspect of that, it is really nice to actually see Turek being faced with this information, as much as he is unfortunately unlikely to ever actually process it.
Memory is affected by an interrogator’s questions: an example being the smash or tinkle question when asking about an accident involving glass breaking. The interrogator’s framing of the question directly affects the witness’s memory of the event. Insurance scams rely on this
Christian gets proven to be demonstrably wrong. Again.
Christian: And I took that personally.
I'd love to see frank have a discussion with a neuroscientist who specializes in memory
We knew a lot less about how memory works, and doesn't work, when Frank Turek was that student's age.
Turek: "Well the studies might say that, but I'm saying the opposite so take that!"
At 2 years old, your memories are memories that are put there by others recounting stories. Look it up.
I have a vivid memory of watching the news coverage of the 9/11 attacks in my third grade classroom. I can recall telling this story several times throughout my teenage years and young adulthood. I’m 32 now, and just a couple years ago, I was recounting the story to my wife when my mom interrupted to remind me that I was actually in fourth grade at the time.
I still have this extremely vivid memory, even though I know logically that it’s untrue. Yet I would still swear it is if only the math added up.
Frank’s whole argument is “I believe it’s true, therefore it’s true”.
The thing I find amusing at Frank's attempt at are argument to "prove" the resurrection is that it fails to do anything of the sort.
1) As this video pointed out, Frank's central premise of "impact memories" being more reliable is false. His insisting that his memory of his family after the JFK assassination being clear in no way means that it is accurate.
2) Then there is the issue of how few Gospel writers could have actually been witnesses in the first place.
3) His argument also commits a Begging the Question Fallacy by assuming that a resurrection was actually witnessed in the first place.
4) As 9/11 showed, people who were witnesses still made claims that were false. How many were lies, misremembering, delusions, etc.? We will never know, but they're still wrong even if they say they are certain about what they saw.
We had guys like this show up at my school. I can't remember vividly what they talked about, but I do remember one guy making the argument that the universe needed to have a beginning and he snuck in that Evolution was impossible because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I remember a lot of hesitancy among the college students there in accepting that. I also remember afterwards lots of guys coming up with things they wish they had thought to say.
The thing with these professional apologists is they rely on their strong arm tactic of having lots of experience with the topic, and with their ability to change goalposts, in winning the moment even if they lose the argument. "Oh sure, they might miss out on some of the little details, but they won't forget that they were witnesses to an actual resurrected Jesus." Yeah, that's the real argument though, Frank ... were they eyewitnesses, or do they believe that eyewitnesses existed becuase they were told they did? The majority of Christians in all of history, nearly 100% of them, learned the claims of Christianity from a book or a preacher. Frank Turek is only aware of Christianity from books or from preachers. He has no connection to any eyewitness.
Yeah but never mind actual memory studies, he's sure he knows exactly where he was and what he was doing when he was 2 years old, not becuase he saw his mother crying one time (which is not very impactful tbh, unless that is the only time she ever cried about anything ever, and probably not even then), but because it was the imapct event that people older than him once used as an icebreaker question. In truth, he is telling an old family story that his parents told him, maybe his older siblings "You were patting her on the back saying "it's ok mommy, don't cry ... it was so cute), a story repeated often enough that he came to believe it over time.
Wow Frank is either deliberately dishonest, or he genuinely is so buried in the faith stuff and winning the moment that he genuinely did not understand the memory study the student was referencing.
The student was forced into being polite, another apologist tactic, so that he acknowledged little things like sure, maybe Frank actually remembers the Kennedy assassination (from when he was 2 years old) and where he was on 9/11, even though the studies show that many people do not remember these events as well as they think they do. Through repetition and subtle bullying, Frank gets the student to allow that "sure, maybe your memories are pinpoint accurate and not to be questioned, but what you are saying about the meories of people in general are not." Well done, Jake. You did better than most people when talking to the guy on stage show has the support of most of the room.
Anyway on to the nature of the original example. It is a form of Watchmaker Argument. He takes a thing that the majority ofthe people in the world agree happened, for which there is video footage that ran for years of the cleanup and the eventual construction of One World Trade Center. Some theorists aside, the world generally agrees that the video footage is accurate, that planes really did crash into those buildings and those buildings really did come down. Then he compares that event with the filmed assassination of John Kennedy, something many people in the audience will have seen. He says yes, people who witnessed these events will accurately remember them. What he skips is that the memories of the people of those events, accurate or inaccurate, will be detailed based on whether those events actually happened.
IFJesus resurrected, and IF there were eyewitnesses, and IF those eyewitnesses wrote their own experiences down in their own words, THEN yeah, MAYBE we would have an argument for people remembering "impact events," as he calls them. But unlike 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination, we don't have any reason to believe that this dude actually returned from the dead. Just like the Watchmaker analogy (which supposes that the universe is designed as one of its propositions in proving that the universe was designed), Frank presupposed the reality of the event before considering the accuracy of the testimony. Just like the Watchmaker analogy, which takes a thing known to have been deigned in order to argument that the universe, more compliacted than a watch, must also have been desingned, Frank's 9/11 argument goes from the memories of an event we all agree happened to the memory of an event we do not all agree happened. All so he can argue the "accuracy" of a stoiry that gets more embellished in each of the five times it is told in the bible (chronologically, in 1 Corinthians, then in Mark, then in Matthew, then in Luke, then in John).
I wonder how many eye witness acounts there are that Elvis is alive.
Turek can not agree with the study because it would force him to question a whole lot of other things about what he's spend years and years of preaching around.
Turek made the easy choice of looking for excuses to not do so, which is very prevalent behaviour amongst apologists! It's less work and less impactful on his ego.
Interesting. I know exactly where I was and what I was doing when I learned of the attacks on 9/11. This is only because I was working for the US Forest Service and I watched the 2nd plane hit live on tv in the lobby of a hotel with my co-worker.
Was serving in the military back then...saw the second plane life on tv. So i remeber the exact moment i realized:shit, this was no accident
So I have to say I remember where I was when I was told Kennedy was shot. I was at school 4th grade and our teacher told us Kennedy was shot, but whether he said shot, or killed I don't remember. What we did after that, I don't remember, all I remember is being at school and being told by our teacher. The only other significant snapshot memory. I was 2-3 yo, very afraid and running to my mother. My mom told me it was an earthquake, though I don't actually remember the earthquake itself, just an image of me running and very afraid. For me snapshot memory is generally a like a snapshot, a brief or single images, and very strong emotions tied to the images. Pretty much any memory I have that is longer and more detailed, will have some fact, i.e. the Twin Towers collapsing and maybe one or two other facts, but the rest is unreliable. Frank picked a good example, since a lot of people actually remember the Towers fell, and then segues to the Kennedy assassination which only a few people in his audience being alive when that happened. He then provided a very detailed snapshot "memory" leaving the audience to believe it was accurate and that snapshot memories are completely reliable.
I once told the story of Jim Lovell's flight by algae light as told in Apollo 13 as my neighbors story _(he was part of an aircraft crew in Vietnam)._ Fortunately, someone noticed and pointed it out, and I immediately realized I was conflating the two _(my neighbor had a story about a time they accidentally flew over enemy anti-air, but managed to turnabout before being noticed)._
This is why I double check things I know I know, because I know I might not know it.
I know what I am Frank, a moist machine that utilizes low power fuzzy logic. I don't remember perfectly, just sufficiently, because evolution is true.
Frank needs to listen to more public radio, there was an episode, I think from RadioLab, about how we form memories from stories others tell us. The guy doing the story realized this when he examined his earliest memory, and knew he couldn't remember when he got a nail in his head as an under one year old. It was just a story he heard all his life, and turned into a memory.
Frank, if you can spin a cow in your mind, you can fabricate memories, even on accident.
Turek: "Lots of people seeing an 'impact event' means it must be true." OK, Frank, then when multitudes saw Muhammad split the moon that certainly would be an impact event so it must be true, right? Oh, wait, you mean it only counts when it's your belief system? Bzzt! Special Pleading Fallacy, Frank. You fail, thanks for playing!
Jake: "Scientific studies show that a person's confidence in their ability to remember is disproportionate-people misremember details, even for flashbulb events."
Frank: "Well, I'm sure I remember correctly, so the studies are wrong."
Me: 😐
Frank is right.
@@HunnysPlaylistsa person that uses an anecdote to dispute a study is themselves just an anecdote.
@@HunnysPlaylistsabout almost nothing
The fact that Frank uses an anecdote from his own memory at 2 years and 2 days. There is strong experimental evidence to suggest that memories from this age are highly likely to be false memories, with likelihood increasing if there is some important socially relevant narrative (like a major cultural moment in politics, just to pluck a random example) which forms part of the memory.
So not only is Turek completely, and comically, missing the point, he is using an anecdotal memory which is the least likely to hold any actual accuracy!
He's a moron!
Jensen! What are you doing here? Shouldn't you be out on a mission or something?
Being the best Christian apologist is like being the fastest sloth at the zoo.
@@hissupremecorrectfulnessre9478 and he is one of the worst Christian apologists. Seriously he is just abysmal this is just horrible.
I have memories I know are false. I vividly remember my TV exploding ripping out my brother’s eye and looking out of the window to see the streets engulfed in flames them running down stairs in my building house and falling asleep in the car.
None of this happened. The TV was fine, my brother was fine, and I woke up in my bedroom that was just burnt to ashes as I can remember happening.
Most people have memories like this but either they resolved them as clearly false or still believe them in spite of reality.
My dad has four of them my mom and I find kind of commercial because of how wrong they are.
😂
The most honest politician
Now that's a great analogy! Thanks for the laugh.
you have less than nothing outside of The Church.
It's mind boggling that Frank didn't notice that he thoroughly proved the questioner's point...
Frank is often oblivious to the faults in his reasoning. He couldn't remain an apologist otherwise, :p.
It's a common gift for apologists. They talk faster than they think. And they never look back.
The more I've seen you and Paulogia cover Frank Turek, the less mind boggling I think anything he does is. Hes just, not that smart of a guy, plus a dishonest guy. Used car salesman stereotype. Hes never gonna move up to selling new cars.
Is it though?
Not really, Frank is so caught up in his own BS he just sticks with his narrative, no matter what..
Frank not getting the point? Color me surprised!
The point doesn't write his paycheck.
Frank Turek has made a career out of actively dodging the point.
Next you'll tell me water is wet and the sun is hot...
@@stephentaylor356 gotta do it... Water isn't wet; it conveys wetness.
Student: the studies have been done. People are convinced they know where they were that day
Frank: yeah, but take me for example: I'M convinced I know where I was that day
instead of "he´s too dumb to understand the study he was explained moments prior" there´s a different way to interpret the response Turek gave. He might have tried to take control of the situation by forcing the kid into the uncomfortable position of having to directly accuse him (an older person in a position of power) of being stupid or a liar. In other words, it might not have been stupidity, but a manipulative bitch move.
Never been this early. I hate Frank Turek! I like your videos though!
Frank I think is one of the most obviously bad faith actors in the Christian scene. I wouldn't be surprised if his faith is just a fake front for his gross political beliefs. He is so clearly anti-intellectual at every turn and never modified or course corrects when repeatedly told objective falsehoods. He gets on my nerves more than most anyone else because of this. Because to me it seems so flagrant that he is a dishonest actor.
This is a crossover I never thought I’d see
@@HidinginPublic A good example of someone who appears to refuse to learn new things, as if he knows everything he needs to know. The very definition of Anti-intellectual (unless I'm wrong - because not only am I willing to learn, but It's also one of my favorite activities). Grow or decay.
I'm getting to the point where I can't even stand to watch videos with some of these apologists in it. So patently disingenuous and deceitful.
I feel your pain, it hurts my brain so much. I'm screaming at the monitor because how can someone NOT understand the argument/reply/point being made.
@@Otazihs they understand it. Their audience doesn't
I feel you, it’s the same way with the political vids I watch. But I listen/watch for the engagement so the channels can still benefit. Hard to watch though I agree.
@@JasonHenderson Debatable. Some apologists might know how dishonest they're being, but more and more I'm forced to wonder how many of them don't even let their brain come into contact with their behaviour, how much of it is just mindlessly following the steps to a brainless little dance. Step _two three_ lie _two three_ if we come from monkeys _two three_ herpaderpa monkeys _two three_ pivot aaaand _jazz hands._
Repeating the same stupid lies, saying the same stupid catchphrases, it looks more and more like they're just doing MadLibs from a template.
@@EdwardHowton some of them could be this way. But not Frank, and not Jimmy. Especially not Jimmy. He knows he's lying. And their other buddy Lee strobel.
I believe guys like wlc honestly believe it, Jordan Peterson, the more philosophical guys. But those three, no way they don't know life they are lying
"I am a psychologist. I'm an expert in human behavior and the inner motivations and deterrents of people."
"I'm a doctor. I'm an expert at human development and healthcare."
"I'm an astrophysicist. I'm an expert on the movement of matter and energy in the universe."
"Well, I'm a xtian apologist. I'm an expert in everything."
🙄
you should use physician rather than doctor here. all of those other disciplines and including chiropractors and dentist are doctors. all physicians are doctors but not all doctors are physicians. PHDs are doctors for example.
@@peterb4926Well, no. A doctor is someone who has a doctorate.
Also chiropracty isn't a discipline, it's a racket.
Simply admitting Reality does wonders like that.
The Church Created EVERYTHING you know, don't know, and take for granted.
without your Remaining Catholic Capital you lose it ALL.
Frank is a well-paid apologist. Saying true things isn't part of the job.
Dishonesty does go with the territory.
@@grahvisthats more along the reddit tier atheist channels, like this one
@@joe5959 .
Do you have an example?
Christian apologists are dishonest every time they claim there is evidence for their God, Their arguments always come down to special pleading.
Napoleon Bonaparte said, "The surest way to remain poor is to be honest."
@@joe5959 Sure, prove it.
Why is Frank trying to say that there is any unambiguous eyewitness testimony about the resurrection in the Bible? The only person who gives any personal testimony is paul, and Paul didn't see the resurrection. All the other parts of the Gospel are written anonymously and decades after the fact, how does he claim that is eyewitness testimony?
It's a claim I hear a lot, yet not one eye witness testimony had even been claimed to exist in the bible. It's massive levels of cope and self deception.
Even worse they always include Paul as a witness to the resurrection. Which shows just how little they care about the details.
He's a biblical liberalist.
If he accepts that traditional authorship or early dating for the gospels could be church tradition then he is going to at least be open to the fact maybe the resurrection (or basically the entire NT) is church tradition.
If it's not eyewitness testimony than his buddies Jimmy Wallace and Lee's Strobel's whole shtick falls apart.
It's all BS from him,,I'm sure he like lots of others had CRS at age 2
The more threatened he feels, the more yell-y he becomes.
Argumentum ad Sonorum: argument from loudness
He often acts a bit like a bully when anyone dare challenge his authority. He's just not a very pleasant human in my judgement.
Most apologists do.
Yes these apologists use the same tactics and always portray themselves as the experts on everything. They just can't see themselves as being wrong about anything.
That's true not only for Frank, but for most apologists, who are not used to people persistently questioning what they just said.
Frank's job is to be right, no matter what. If he is seen as wrong it would effect his reputation and bottom line imo. He can't admit he's doesn't know. It's a business 1st. He's just one of the salemen.
His income and peer-adoration DEPEND on him always being confidently "right". So, I would be shocked if he ever admitted an error.
Paulogias whole channel is hinged on that statement you just made
@@joe5959yep, but Paulogia income is not based around people who believe that the alternative to their current faith is hell.
Why do people refuse to accept data contrary to their claims, instead choosing to double down. I''ll bet he doesn't discontinue this argument in future seminars.
Sure, he won't. That's an anti-sicentific mindset and with that mindset they dare to criticize science
In Turek's case, his livelihood depends on it.
Well, also remember he's s creationist. His ilk of Christianity is actually VERY anti science. They go along with science when it's convenient. It's not "science agrees on x, so I think x" it's "I believe x regardless of science, but I'll tout the science if I think it supports me, even though it has no bearing on what I believe"
In the future, Christianity will abandon the claims of proof of the resurrection. They don't need proof of any other Bible claims.
See Kent Hovind for reference
Frank using the most smug and condescending tone of voice when he responds.
Sounds like my fking father #daddyissues
Especially when he’s wrong.
_very_ condescending when he misses the point, "so you _really_ think people wouldn't remember the two towers getting hit?" when that's clearly not what the dispute was. as if the student were going to turn around and say yes actually, the study shows that people will actually tend to remember there being five or six towers and no footage has ever been shown on the news ever, wow mr turek you sure steelmanned my position really well there sir.
turek is the type of apologist who barely understands the surface level of whats going on and takes a very smug self-unctuous attitude about it.
That is Frank's standard response. He is a condescending arrogant bully who tends to get aggressive when he is publically challenged.
I hate Frank Turek
Somebody should call Frank out. The first time he said November 23rd the second time he said November 22nd. I'd bet he'd have, at least, a moment of doubt.
See I thought it was the 23rd, the same night as the very first episode of Doctor Who, but I just checked, it was the 22nd. Guess I misremembered this impact event but I'd been so confident I wasn't misremembering this entire time
Well, the day after Kennedy was assassinated was clearly also a traumatic day for him. He probably looked in a mirror ...
@@NoStringsAttachedPrd it was Friday evening in the UK. Dr Who debuted the next day but the TV was dominated by Kennedy that day and few watched it so it was reshown a week later.
I caught that, too. Shame I wasn't in the audience that day.
He was confusing watching the first ever episode of Dr Who with the Kennedy assassination.
The chances that Frank remembers the Kennedy assassination at the age of two is absurd. His mom telling him over and over again that he must remember this traumatic experience is a much more likely scenario.
Not to mention the cultural impact of the event leading to the widespread claim that everyone can “remember where they were when they heard Kennedy was shot”
@@CharlieNoodles Actually, I can remember where I was. I was in class and the announcement came over the school PA system.
@@CharlieNoodlesI do believe that everyone not a toddler also remembers where they were when they heard about 9/11
@@CharlieNoodlesalso my dad remembers being taken out of school by the local panther party when MLK jr was assassinated. That’s one that absolutely stuck in the consciousness of black folks in this country.
@@princegobi5992You may believe something, but that doesn’t make it true.
Frank really wants us to believe that he has a memory from when he was barely 2 years old. What a crock of crap
Compared to the other stuff he wants us to believe, that's actually incredibly reasonable. 😂
He's also using 'remember where you were on 9/11' (23 years ago) to college students (18-22 years old)
Edit: Just reached the point in the video where Turek says it was 22 years ago, so must be last year's video.
@@williamdowling7718 Not 2, but 4 seems reasonable
@@JoshuaRed-v4f I'm not saying he's saying something reasonable. At all. I'm saying that compared to his other claims, this one is way more reasonable.
I'm saying his main claims as an apologist are so unreasonable that they make this 2yo claim seem reasonable.
@@JoshuaRed-v4f As an accurate description of what happened during an assassination? Not really. You don’t even know what any of it means at that age.
Frank is displaying all the sincerity of a used cars salesman. Only difference he is selling used apologetics.
He remembers what happened and what he said to his mother .. 60years ago when he was 2?!! I call BS .. I am willing to wager he remembers what his family and possibly what his mother told him he probably said to her .. and chances are that wasn't the same story everytime
Turek “knows” what happened because that’s what his mother told him when he asked about it later in his life.
He visualized it. Maybe even dreamt it.
Same with bibble stories.
We’re asking him to scrutinize the details more carefully and he’s a proud boy.
How dare we question his account of his own life.
Not to mention he’s heard stories from others who went through it and could be just copying those stories onto his own.
Kind of like how everyone is expected to be sad at a funeral or happy at a wedding.
The odds that his vocabulary would allow him to say that are slim to none. He almost certainly is remembering what people have said to him much later in life.
Well, he's also a young earth creationist, so is it surprising that he disagrees with/ignores scientific data that goes against his beliefs?
Frank’s an Old Earth Creationist. He’s a step up from Ken Ham and Ray Comfort, but only just.
@@Rhewin A🥜is always a 🥜.
The earth is young
@samuelcalderwood1379 I suppose it could be relative. I don't think about 4 billion years is young. but thats me
@@samuelcalderwood1379 So dumb.
Student: "hey studies show your 9/11 example is about as wrong as can be, personal confidence goes up as factual accuracy does down" Turek: "But i remember 9/11 perfectly"
He doesn't realize that his own high confidence in his memory doesn't provide ANY additional credibility to it. He seems to think that false memories would be foggy or uncertain, like trying to remember a dream.
@@fluffyllama1505 That's the story: some people think that being sure about something is enough to make that something true. In the end, it is narcissism, the inability of seeing oneself being wrong.
@@fluffyllama1505 It's not really all that surprising. These are the same people who think their faith in a thing makes it true.
@@rampagingibex3181 Interesting. It's as if the 'belief' is what 'makes' the thing true. Maybe that's the reason I seem to rarely see an apologist from one religion arguing that another religion is false. I used to think it was because those arguments would likely work equally well against their own religion (so they avoid it).
When considering that if one accepts that the 'belief itself' is what somehow forces reality into being that way, I can see someone with the position that "well since they believe those things, it true for them" (as if there is no testable, shared reality - or less of it somehow).
Instead, to me, this is the obvious issue - that with the existence any two religions with convinced believers of mutually exclusive claims - someone MUST in fact be wrong, I therefore believe none of it. When I point this out to religion A (for example), inevitably they "zoom out" to some larger picture where "the existence of so many religions must be pointing to something", and in their mind somehow this validates their particular religion (I am unsure how).
Instead, this indicates to me "wait for more concrete evidence before spending my life either genuflecting, bowing to the East 7 times per day, speaking in tongues, going door-to-door, wearing this or that funny hat (or holy underwear), avoiding this or that safe food or safe consensual sex act, aligning chakras, hating this or that group of people, differing thought crimes, etc. - all the while dishonestly claiming to value the 'truth'.
The claims I like are testable - ones that all should agree on, like: "If there is an intact, functional, average brick wall that remains as such before, during and after our test, we should all agree, one cannot walk 'directly through the bricks' to the back side of it without altering that brick wall. Instead, one would have to go over, around, damage/remove it, etc. to walk to the back side".
If people could, that would reduce the use count of brick walls (they're also decretive/structural).
There are enough of these testable, far more useful, fascinating - and agreed upon claims, that to learn them all would fill several lifetimes and more discoveries every day (and I enjoy learning), so why would I waste my time on any untestable claim?
I wish he was in the study, so someone could yell to play the clip.
Frank KNOWS exactly that he was doing, saying and heard, on a specific day, when he was 2.
The BOSS level BS from this guy.🙄
I am fairly certain that even if he is not lying, that his memory is a nearly full fabrication based on other experiences.
Yeah I agree, that some boss level BS for sure 💯👍
His story only reinforces the student's point about influence on memory.
He was alive when it happened, he's likely had conversations about it with family, friends,etc., of course mother's NEVER exaggerate, he's seen news/videos/print about the incident, and his mother likely told him at one point in his life about how she felt when watching it on tv...... his story is the amalgamation of all that.
Frank yelling about how it's impossible for him to ever be wrong about anything is peak Dunning-Kruger.
Even according to the Bible, most people didn't SEE Jesus risen anyway, and they were never interviewed about it, there was no way to do that. The premise doesn't make sense to begin with.
Excellent point. Turek describes the resurrection as an event like 9/11 which was televised around the world. As you say, there are only a small number of anecdotal accounts of the risen Jesus. Turek tries to infer that the gospels, with the exception of Luke, are eye witness accounts. We know none of them were, and even though Luke says he is compiling accounts, he doesn't cite any direct witnesses. Paul throws in the 500 people that saw Jesus post resurrection, saying they have not all passed, hinting that they could be sought out and asked about it. He hasn't apparently bothered to do that however, and we can pretty much dismiss this as just an unsubstantiated claim.
The resurrection of Jesus would be no more than a claim made by a small number of people that grew in legend. There was no impact event. No Monday morning newspaper with headlines proclaiming rebel rousing preacher rises from the dead following Roman execution. Of course, only 40 days later Jesus is gone for good anyway.
Turek thinks that the Resurrection was the biggest event in the history of the world, but fails to realise it would not have seemed so then. That is assuming it actually happened, rather a just myth developing.
@@Marconius6 Paul did and that's all that matters. :)
There were exactly...Zero Eyewitnesses to Jesus actually rising from the dead. An eyewitness is someone who says "I (their name)personally saw Jesus rise from the dead." Paul's experience was a vision...years later.
@@GameDay516 There's not even a claim of witnessing a resurrection. If we accepted seeing a physical person alive, then that would put his death into question, not prove a resurrection.
@goldenalt3166 Many apologists claim there were eyewitnesses.
15:03 And here we have Frank Turek at his most vile: dismissing an informed and polite interloquter.
0:41 "the bible has eye-witness testimony in it."
This is like the time my kid said the tv had Pokémon in it.
Yeah - fun fact, the gospels contain not one example of eyewitness accounts (ie "I, Simon Peter, saw Jesus walk on water in a storm."). All of it is third person pov (ie "Then Mary went to the tomb and ran away again.").
My favorite "impact event" is Olof Palme. The Swedish prime minister who was k.lled in broad daylight on a busy street in 1986. Since then, no fewer than 36 witnesses have come forward with wildly varying details about what happened, and it's very likely it hampered the investigation.
Missing people cases always have to deal with those phantom eyewitness. Some studies make a correlation between how mediatic is a case and the number of eyewitness.
@@plattbagarn Have they proven that some of the witnesses couldn't have been present at all?
All of this is why eyewitnesses, humans, are so notoriously unreliable. Peace 💚
Palme was killed around midnight on the 28 of february. Not in the daylight.
But did they all agree that he had been killed?
My memory does serve me well! Paul did love the eyewitness documentary 😅
I predict Turek will eventually stop doing Q and A sessions. Similar to the way Steven Crowder no longer does “change my mind” segments. It’s easy to appear to win an argument when people are unfamiliar with the dishonest tactics you use, and manipulative word games. Once people catch on and show up as prepared as you are it becomes much harder.
“Luke, I am your father.” Was in the movie ‘Tommy Boy’.
Thanks, I feel like this is the reason why it was rewritten in our brain!
Good catch. I was scrolling through the comments to see if anyone else remembered it’s origin
The truly hilarious thing is that Frank is arguing that 500 fictitious people would have had a perfect memory of Jesus rising from the dead.
He not only cannot verify their memories - he can't verify their existence.
But you can't expect him to see clearly when his head is that far up his own arse
My old boss named his son Luke. He joked it was because one day he could say “Luke, I am your Father”
Obviously I corrected him.
No bonus that year.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I blame tommy boy
Dying (not literally) to know if Luke married someone named Leah. 😂
@@kennethd.9436 actual LOL 👌👏🏻👏🏻
Frank is pretty skilled at misdirection and his position on stage with an audience of college students makes him seem like he is in control. Good thing there are UA-camrs like Paul who call out Frank’s bullshit for all of us to see.
He really is a piece of work, isn't he?
I just mentioned the 911 event to my wife.
I told her that I remember getting home from work, getting to bed and having a light breakfast while watching the news.
.
She said, "no, you sat in the kitchen and ate a lot while watching the news.".
.
So now, I'm in doubt on who's right.
There's a chance that maybe, neither.
I hate to be that guy in this scenario but I definitely remember what I was doing. I was late for school (more than usual) and my father was the one who first told me about it because the first smoking tower was on live television in the family room. I also remember seeing the second tower get hit a few minutes after and I can clearly recall this due to the difference in time zones.
Probably a mixture a simple thing would be thinking of what you usually do. The exact location is more based on yourself, but from some basic understanding you may have gotten a large amount of food and eaten little due to the news but again I only saying large amount of food because people tend to have fixation on certain odd aspects that are out of character or unusual.
@@BleedForTheWorld Most people remember exactly what they were doing. The thing is, a lot of those people are wrong. That has been scientifically proven. I also remember exactly, in vivid detail, what I was doing. The thing is, it's virtually impossible to know whether my memories are correct or not. I'm sure they are. But so is everyone else whose memories are demonstrably false.
I'm fairly confident in my memory of where I was and what I was doing, but that is partly because I don't think I experienced much that would have influenced that memory.
I am also well aware of memories that I believed accurate, and later learned were artificial.
It is true, that impactful events are more likely to cement a memory. But I think that means that it was the impactful event cemented, not secondary details.
So while I am confident of remembering where I was, I am not at all confident on my memory on secondary details. I am pretty sure I was first alerted about 9/11 events by a specific coworker I knew fairly well, but I no longer recall his name.
@@DoloresLehmann yeah I understand the research
Fun fact: I have had memories I knew in real time as I recalled them as false. Your brain does this with stress. I have several times not purchased an item that I only bought in a dream. I have been getting items from the store recalling having them so hours ago but the time I did prior I was on the moon and dreaming. I have caught this in real-time buying the items I actually don't have.
Vivid dreaming can be a lot like that. Sometimes it can be enjoyable.
@@Specialeffecks Definitely, for instance when Frank says the impact event is easy to remember he is not wrong. I hate when I launch myself about a half a mile to my house but forget to flip my cart over and now I have to wait for the cheese to land back in my yard.
I know what that feels like despite never having done it.
"Okay well we'd have to look at those studies because personal experience does not bear that out." I'm glad the video was almost over at this point, because I don't think I could take much more
@@fluffyllama1505 Hey Frank. Have your executive producer call up that person your were with and interview both of you separately.
The fact that Frank is entirely unaware of the studies that directly contradict his narrative tells me that he is more interested in promoting his narrative than he is of learning the actual truth.
Yeah, the studies are literally _about_ personal experience and they show that memories for personal experiences, and the personal experience of being confident in those memories, are _not_ reliable. That doesn't mean they're always wrong, just that you can't rely on them - you (ideally) need external, independent, objective corroboration. Which there's none of for anything in the Gospel mythos.
@@Grim_Beard Exactly. Even If you took the gospels as accurate independent eye- witness testimony, we wouldn't conclude a resurrection had occurred.
Mandala effect is quite interesting. But regarding the Darth Vader quote, part of the blame goes to comics framing the line that way to ensure the audience recognizes the reference material. By including Luke's name along with the deep voice, is more effective than the actual line, because you risk the audience not immediately recognize the movie, and the joke would flop.
It's hilarious that Frank describes that guy, who was clearly trying and suceeding to be respectul, as a provocateur. Frank fits that label much better.
The biggest point to make is that confidence in a belief does not equate to likelihood of that belief being correct
The "how did I say it wrongly" is so disingenuous. It's such a ridiculous "if you can't repeat me verbatim from a conversation you we were having 5 minutes ago then your point is not valid".
It is the last retreat of the liar and the fraud and so transparent.
It's so slimy. Guy turns up and cites a study on how people misremember details but feel confident they have remembered right. Turek shifts goalposts to "do you _really_ think people wouldn't remember that the two towers got hit?" as if the news footage hasn't been repeating on tv for decades. The student responds that that's not what's he's specifically responding to, Turek says "yes it is." Student tries again to specify, and yeah Turek requires the student quote verbatim what he had said however long back it had been since he'd said it, and ends with fobbing off the studies on how people will misremember things while still feeling they are remembering correctly because Turek feels too strongly like he remembers correctly. Like lol yeah you may have a study I haven't seen, but I feel like I'm right anyway so-
and the Frank brings the footage up in a video being all "woow look at this provocateur, trying to cause trouble by bringing up his _studies"_
@christophersandford5888, not sure how I feel about how you more less suggesting Franky is a liar and a fraud. You’re being to harsh on liars and frauds. They’re typically not as bad as frank “waste of flesh” turek.
@HolisterX hmm, that's a hard one. I would agree there are definitely scales of "bad" to "worse" in these traits, however I'm not convinced that, specifically as a liar and fraud, Turek is much worse than many other liars and frauds.
Where I would probably agree that he is worse than many liars and frauds is that he is also a bigot, and he uses his lies to spread and persist his bigotry, and to convince others to do the same. In this way I would agree; he is pretty despicable.
I was in American History class when I saw the news report after the South Tower had been hit. If you asked me which news channel we were watching, it was probably CNN although I could have that wrong. You asked me who the teacher for my class was, all I could remember was he was some coach, but not which sport he coached or what his last name was. It is amazing how I can remember something that was heavily reinforced with multiple news stories and documentaries of the event over the years, but can’t recall details that I wasn’t constantly being reminded of over the same time.
Exactly! Even eye witnesses to a crime slowly change their story over time and aren't aways reliable sources despite being direct witnesses. Any source that isn't written contemporaneously is subject to bias, changed memories, and all sorts of other quirky human brain stuff. Heck, even the most instant and direct witness is always bias because everyone has their own perspective.
I was in AP Calculus when we got the news.
I also distinctly remember a girl in our band class coincidentally wearing a rhinestone NYC shirt with the Twin Towers on it that day. Though I'm also pretty sure that memory is fake and I only "remember" it because she **did** have a shirt like that. Just wasn't necessarily wearing it that day.
Yes our brainstorming are quite flexible about its own Memoiren and is very happy to hear slightly different versions of the Story to "correct " our own internal memories.
Grmbl... this AI if I don't register every english words it let Autospell find an alternative german word...
@@stacie1595 Confident witnesses are often the least accurate.
Obviously a Christian with no psychology training knows more about psychology than a psychology student (/s if I have to clarify)
The day i was told my grandma died was a sad day. But i remember absolutely nothing of what i did before or after i was informed.
Same with me when I was told of my grandfather's passing. The loss remains, the details fade. Such is life. Peace 💚
@@DaveB-hg7el yeah i remember the amazing food and snacks my grandma made. She could make anything taste amazing. Now that is what's worth remembering. Not the sad day.
@@tonyolsson3880 Yes, I agree completely. I remember my grandfather's generosity and kindness. I also was taught how to bake by my grandmother, which became my career. Thanks, peace 💚
Goodness, Frank Turek is so obnoxious in this. He’s blatantly wrong, struggles to see how he’s wrong, shifts the goalposts, and childishly claims that his personal experiences trump research. What a piece of work.
Well, at last Turek will not forget to take his backside with him... because he just got his ass handed to him. 🤭
We're also comparing probably one of the most heavily documented events in history to some stories that got passed around 2000 years ago. There really isn't a comparison. The gravity of the claims matters too. Me thinking I had Raisin Bran instead of Cheerios the morning of 9/11 isn't consequential like someone rising from the dead.
I'm guessing all the Elvis sighting of him back from the dead happened in a time when most people knew better.
2000 years ago, apparently this was more easily believed - as stories of Lazarus, Jesus, "bodies of many saints were raised and seen by many people" made it into the book many years after hearing similar stories being shared (embellished enough for the next person to even listen and then even retell).
This happened verbally over and over for 20 years before the version being told at that time arrived at the author, who decided it was good enough (or he was just superstitious enough) - with maybe only a few of his own tweaks to show off his writing skills - to write it down because people seem to like these stories, and someone may even read it.
I'm sure the author had no idea that out of all the random stories told of the time - his would be the one to turn into a popular set of religions so many years later! (One of them had to be 'the one that boiled to the top' - from that culture).
Frank literally shows he goes with facts over feelings. He knows where he was. Everyone else knows where they were. He just feels this is true.
The fact that we've shown this is false doesn't impact him at all.
Facts > Feelings
Sorry Frank
Brave guy to get up in front of an obviously pro-Turek crowd and point out where Turek gets something else wrong.
Okay, Frank. I thought your whole reason for existing was to teach us the gospel, you don't want us to ask you questions though? You claim to have access to an all-knowing deity. Your accuracy on these subjects should be beyond human comprehension but it is infantile.
where did you get that idea? He exists to grift money from gullible people by lying to them to keep them in a religion that makes him money.
I have been waiting to see some student do this to apologists. I mean, we are talking first year university psychology here. Nice to see him flustered at least.
For the apologist, the only thing that matters is to snuff out any doubts by believers.
Anything is acceptable if it smothers doubt.
That's the demand of apologists by believers (regardless of what the apologist may personally accept - or even had lost their faith). The benefit any believer perceives from their religion only requires their acceptance, not that the claim is verifiably/demonstrably true (therefore, core claims often unfalsifiable). After all, to believe = great reward, not to believe = severe penalty. So, they ONLY focus on the confirming, however flimsy, and always away from the 'scary' disconfirming - however solid, logical and/or even rigorously tested.
Frank gets upset when his bread and butter, oops, I mean belief gets credibly challenged!👍🏼🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌🏼
Frank's feelings don't care about facts.
My earliest memory is me thinking of something I could still easily remember at the time, which I've since completely forgotten.
Apropos unreliable accounts, unlike the other Gospels, in the original Gospel of Mark, the oldest gospel, there was no account of Jesus meeting anyone or being seen by anyone after his body goes missing from his tomb.
Moreover, in the Synoptic Gospels, Mary Magdalene and other women go to the tomb. In John's account, Mary Magdalene goes alone. In Matthew, Jesus appears to the women before they tell the disciples. In John, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene first; after she reports to the disciples. In Matthew and Mark one angel appears; in Luke and John there are two angels. In Matthew, the women tell no one of what they had seen.
Sounds like a case of a body going missing and then everyone making up a resurrection and fabricating accounts of having seen angels and spoken to Jesus to fit the narrative.
That is if the entire thing is not made up to start with.
The problem with the 9/11 comparison Frank is making is that we all know about this because it's well-documented.
I'd like to see him say the same thing about the miracle of the Sun at Fatima. Thousands of people claimed to witness the Sun move and dance about in the sky, with some claiming to see Mary in the sky. According to Frank those people can't be mistaken. Sure they may get details about that day wrong but they can't be wrong that the son moved around erratically in the sky or that Mary appeared in the sky.
Frank Turek more than most apologists, annoys me. He comes across (at least to me) as both arrogant and condescending, even aggressive at times.
Anyone with an elementary knowledge of cognitive development would call bullshit on Frank Turek. He just spews "common sense" that has been scientifically debunked.
9/11 happened when I was 6, when I was 14 I had an English assignment to write a paper about where I was when I learned about 9/11. I wrote about coming home from school and telling my mom about 9/11, I wrote that she was asleep when I got home and I had to wake her up.
My mom found the essay later and told me that none of that was correct at all and I essentially made it all up. She said she picked me up from school that day. It was enlightening to realize that my memory could be that confident and be totally wrong. I don't think people that are confident in their memories are better at remembering, they're just more confident. I wish I was in the audience when Frank Turek made that comment because I specifically have direct evidence against that dumb argument.
If people would just bother to learn about how the brain works and makes up memories, perhaps they would be less prone to claim that they remember something happened exactly how they describe it.
There is no way he can remember the Kennedy assassination. I'm older by a year and can't remember it
That’s my earliest memory, I was 3 years old. My mom was frantic “They killed the president!” But of course I don’t remember anything else, just my mom’s total upset, could have been the “president “ of Uganda.
Frank Turek's, best arguments always seem to rely on early Christians behaving nothing like modern day people.
He remembers what happened when he was 2 years old? All can remember at that age is hiding my poop in the radiator. I have no idea of the date.
Well played on the poop hiding - that's always the last place most people look for hidden poop - or so I am told anyway.
Not a flashbulb memory, but a trivial bit of memory fallibility: I heard writer Dan Wells on a podcast describe that his writer friends have a shorthand for telling you when you've foreshadowed your character's fate a little too hard: "he wants to live in Montana." It's a reference to _The Hunt for Red October,_ a navy officer in the middle of a tense situation describing his happy, peaceful plans for the future. To a modern audience, the message is clear: _Obviously this guy's gonna die._
Then, same podcast, several years later, he tells the exact same story, except now "he wants to live in Wyoming."
And that really made me wonder. Obviously the detail is not important - the officer describes a rancher lifestyle that could happen in either state. But if Mr. Wells and his friends really use this reference and this phrase, how did such a bit-flip happen?
(And I just checked the Internets. It was "Montana" in the film.)
I really can't stand the utter arrogance that is a necessary component of being an apologist. I'm pretty sure my memory of where I was when i found out about the 9/11 attacks is accurate. I can accept that Frank's is as well. But, to summarily dismiss the fact that there are studies on memory of that exact event - that he used as evidence for his eye witness claims - simply because he believes that his own memory is accurate.... It's infuriating.
Studies have repeatedly shown that our memories are not as good as we beliebe them to be. New memories can be "created" during repetition and important points can be forgotten even as the overall arc of an event is remembered.
But no. That doesn't support the view that Frank wants to convince people of, so the actual research must be wrong and anyone who brings it up is simply a provocateur.
Sure Frank.
Well, you heard turek's answer. *He* is Sure he remembers well (just ignore the only thing he claimed to remember are things we have objective evidence for), so it totally also works for the gospels stories (for which we dont have objective evidence for).
It shows Frank Turek hasn't been paying attention to what scientists have been discovering about memory.
*None of the 12 disciples saw Jesus' resurrection,* some probably were witnesses to his crucifixion, and then, some may have heard that he had risen from the women who visited his tomb, even though the actual story ends with *_"Frightened and Bewildered the women fled the tomb and told NO ONE of what they saw "_* which is how Mark wrote the story that he supposedly got from Peter, all the following Gospels add different versions to the Original from Mark, likely to fix the part of _"... And told no one of what they saw"_ at the end.
Frank should be way more jacked if he's constantly moving those heavy goal posts around.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Frank, dude, you and I are the same age nearly to the day, so it should be no surprise that I too was at home with my mom on the day in question. And, I have a clear and detailed memory of that impactful day as well. Problem is, every detail is wrong. You see, I remember watching the coverage, but my mom says the t.v. wasn't even on, she didn't find out until later than most, and considerably later than my memory begins. Not only that, FRANK, but my very clear irrefutable memory of this impact event... occurs at a house my parents didn't buy until six months later.
Classic Turek, not that smart sometimes, and unwilling to learn.
I know a lot of people believe the famous quote is "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn," but I checked the movie Clue, and it is "Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a damn."
;)
You know, you could theoretically find someone with a perfect memory who saw that film in the theater and have them tell you that line wasn't in the movie at all!
Well, if Jesus rose from the dead 2,000 years ago and he loves us, why hasn't he shown up *_even once?_* Hmmmm.... 🤔🤣
Liars gonna lie
*_Faith In Your Memory_** ;*
Who needs research and statistics & actual science when you've got your feelings and your faith ? lol
Frank is an example of the human brain overcoming cognitive dissonance and placing man made fiction above facts. When you empower this accomplishment with public speaking and self confidence you can convince anyone who is less skilled in this business.
I would never waste my time arguing with Frank or anyone who looks like Frank.
I won't debate with anybody that brings their fairytale to a science debate. They are not there to be honest and they are not there to debate. They want publicity and a chance to prosyletize and demonize the opposition and not an opportunity to debate.
I predict Turek will eventually stop doing Q and A sessions. Similar to the way Steven Crowder no longer does “change my mind” segments. It’s easy to appear to win an argument when people are unfamiliar with the dishonest tactics you use, and manipulative word games. Once people catch on and show up as prepared as you are it becomes much harder.
Frank wants the impact event to be the resurrection but that's the event in question, the actual impact event for Jesus' family and disciples would be his death.
If the stories are to be believed, the empty tomb. Why is the empty tomb so prominent? Do you remember reports of planes off course? Mary doesn't seem to remember who was with her.
Seems possible that the empty tomb was the only reported event for a while.
@@goldenalt3166 the earliest report we have is from Paul which gives no prominence to the empty tomp, according to Paul the natural body is perishable and unable to inherit the kingdom of God, only the spiritual body that is imperishable can inherit the kingdom. It would seem from Paul Jesus died, was buried, and was raised with a spiritual body. The later gospel accounts want to make it a physical resurrection.
@@wilkimist Yes, but Paul was not likely the source for gospel stories. It's possible the empty tomb was invented because the post resurrection appearances were highly disputed at Mark's time and they were already creating apologetics to explain why they knew he wasn't so dead. But you've got to ask, if there were witnesses to Jesus alive, why would anyone record an empty tomb? Ever hear of Elvis's empty tomb?
'Well we'll have to take a look at these studies". Yes Frank, are you going to? Because lots of people have, and they agree that memory is maliable...
I was sleeping soundly and then heard my then wife screaming, "Wake up! We are under attack!" I came upstairs and saw the first tower had smoke billowing out of it. I have a science background. I had been thinking of a prior event where a major earthquake had hit Mexico City and a hospital had "pancaked" floor by floor. I knew that it was likely that the tower would not remain standing. And then the news came across that a second tower had been hit.
I went for a smoke, and was beginning to have a lapse (I have these lapses which have grown to the point of debilitating me). I wasn't able to fully follow what was happening, but cognitively I knew that the towers were likely to collapse. And then I remember seeing the cascade of the collapse of the first building. It was difficult to focus what my eyes were seeing happening on television from the commentary of the newscasters who would simply not shut up.
That is what makes stories hard to follow. Some people see what they are hearing and do not see what they are seeing.
Sometimes people will tell you the story and it isn't always accurate. Yes, I could see the pancaking event and see the collapse of one tower and then the other. But I know what I saw. I remember all the speculation that was occuring already without knowing who caused it or why. Answers were being provided as to why well ahead of evidence.
When events happen people begin to immediately form a narrative. This is more so with religious groups and political groups. The commentary begins immediately.
If you wish to remain fair, and impartial, and if you care about justice and truth, see with your eyes. Do not see with your ears because you will be blinded.
Fair play to the psychology student. I am Turek's manner in a public arena can be daunting but this was an impressive stand for critical thinking.