They missed something at the end: when the caller said "you refuse to see it", he was contradicted what he had said previously, that there IS NO proof and "you will never see proof". So he had already admitted that there's no proof even theoretically, and that you must believe without evidence (faith) and now he's saying that they're ignoring the non-existant evidence.
If personal experience was true evidence, Christians would lose horribly. You would have to stack up a few miracles against billions of unanswered prayers.
This caller thinks belief is a choice, that’s his problem. So when he says “you refuse to believe”…. He’s flat out wrong…. they don’t “refuse” to believe, they CANNOT believe because they aren’t convinced. “Refusing” and “not being able to” are two separate things
"Most things that can't be proven are easily disproved." We are talking about proving that something doesn't exist, which is not that easy. Prove to me that there are no unicorns.
HAHAHAHAHAHHA The last question was great. WOW! Well I'm going to ride on my unicorn, then ask the leprechaun that lives under the rainbow for some gold and then go to a jam with Santa and the Easter bunny......
i wasnt talking about god, im talking about creationism. all the evidence points towards evolution and its already been observed in a lab and is basically a scientific fact now. i dont see how anyone could say evolution is completely wrong and creationism is right. you know you can still believe in god and evolution.
They see him clearly die, then they see him come back to them afterwards clearly alive. That's pretty astounding. You are expecting someone to be sitting in a dead man's tomb watching him? Come on, that would be pretty creepy.
You have zero reason to believe that story ... since it was written 25+ years after the time when it was supposed to have happened. No eyewitness accounts AT ALL.
"Since you focused on the Resurrection instead of Christmas" Christmas is a pagan celebration not mentioned in the Bible. I wouldn't want to encourage its celebration.
In 1962, a Hebrew inscription found in Caesarea, mentions Nazareth as one of the places in which the priestly family of Hapizzez was sent after Bar Kokhba's revolt (132-135 AD). A complete list of the twenty-four priestly courses, with each course (or family) assigned its proper order and the name of each town or village in Galilee where it settled after the revolt. So Nazareth wasn't a new town in AD 135. You can call that 100 years later, but it obviously was one of the well established towns
Stating that a belief is gullible vs. stating a group of people are less worthy of something due to their beliefs are not the same. If you think it is, you didn't think enough.
This caller claims that there is evidence for god and that atheists just deny it...very soon after saying "there never will be proof of god; faith is required." How does he even remain coherent?
‘There’s no good evidence to believe in a thing, but you’re just refusing to believe it’....well yea I guess, so what? Because if I don’t believe what you’re saying, something bad will happen to me? Yea I don’t believe things based on threats.
Well, the US has separation of Church and State, AND freedom of religion, which includes the option to NOT worship. Therefore, if you're a citizen, you're a citizen regardless of you're religions views. Personally, I think there's WAY too much influence on politics from religion and it needs to STOP.
"Atheists don't have overwhelming evidence against the existence of God" The burden of proof is on those who believe in something, not those that don't. You don't have overwhelming evidence against the existence of Thor, does that make Thor real?
@empbac Good question! Firstly, the story never says that he "doubted", he just wanted assurance. Secondly, this story proves the point I was making. Thomas wanted to "experience" the risen Jesus not to just "believe" in him, that's why he requested touching him. No matter how much we "have faith" (believe without proof) it will never compare to "experience" because whatever you experience then becomes real to you, and then you begin to not only have "faith" in God but know God .
That is a good point, and I do find cases of personal experiences interesting. But the reason they don't really count as an observation is because anybody can claim they've had such an experience... science doesn't work well when anybody can potentially make up a story and then it has to be considered as evidence. For instance, I can claim I've had an experience with Santa Claus (Merry Xmas!!), there are people who would believe me (mainly 5 yr olds lol) but its still something I made up.
Yes but day and night are usually linked together. If you concede the rest of the day, why not the night connected to it too? You would be better off demanding 72 hours. Once you concede partial credit is enough, then he has met the time period.
"tell me, how do YOU disprove something that cant be proven?" Think of what you just said. Okay, it can't be proven that I was the first President, right? Do you really think you would have trouble diproving that I was the first President? Most things that can't be proven are easily disproved.
"for BOTH Matthew AND Luke to be true in their accounts of Christ's Nativity / Infancy, Jesus would have to have been born around BOTH 4 B.C.E. AND 6 C.E. - in other words, born TWICE, at LEAST a FULL *DECADE* APART!" Untrue. There are no dates in the New Testament for Jesus birth. Those ideas are based on guesses about census dates and when certain officials took offices. All dependent on the sparse information we have available.
Actually they do sometimes seem "Fatigued" when they give such straight forward answers. But I 100% completely understand why that is. It must be SO annoying having to deal with so many theists saying the same DAMN thing!! lol
"Luke FLATLY STATES that it's JOSEPH'S!" Nope, you are ignoring the important part of any mention of Joseph the "or so it was thought" part which takes him out entirely. Heli was Mary's father. We also know that Heli was Mary's father from jewish sources that are hostile to Christianity.
I think it should be obvious at this point that if there is a god, then he definitely, A) will not provide any evidence except to people who are open to believing or do believe, and B) will not provide any evidence that can be verified, and will only provide evidence as personal experience. If someone believes or is open to believing they are going to be already inclined to see anything slightly unlikely as signs. The problem is unlikely things are statistically guaranteed to happen.
Thoroughly disagreed, rationality and reason would be nice, but they approached this using the Socratic Method, questioning the listener, while listing facts, and the conclusion that the Socratic Method led them to, was that not only was his opinion irreversible, but he was going to be insulted by any declaration of atheism, and the belief that we are less then Christians was now permanently imprinted in his mind, without any measure of falsifiability. That needs to be stopped.
Caller states: "I didn't get any evidence until after I was a Christian. You will never see evidence of God." At the throne: "God sent plenty of evidence you just refused to see it."
"No policeman would say "there is no evidence of any crime here" if there are four witnesses swearing a crime happened" But he may very well do so if only one person swears it & there is absolutely no other evidence.
That is absolutely true, however it does not have anything to do with what I said. My point was, if someone is going to subjugate others to their ethical guidelines, they must follow them as well, else be a hypocrite.
-- Also Tertullian wrote that Jesus was born during the governorship of Saturninus (9-6 BC) and that imperial records showed that census were conducted during his tenure. So Quirinius was a procurator of the province (whose governor couldve been either Varus or Saturninus) which fits with Lukes account and his use of hegemon to describe Quirinius. So Lukes census could refer to the 1st one conducted by Quirinius as a procurator of Syria some time before his actual governorship in AD 6.
"That means that Elizabeth, AND THEREFORE MARY, is likewise a LEVITE and NOT a JUDAHITE." Nope. Elizabeth is a relation, but you can't assume they are from the same tribe. Elizabeth is a Levite, Mary is not. There was intermarriage between tribes, that is firmly established historically.
If God is omnipresent - that is, he is present - and not merely present in some vague way, but *totally* present - the sum total of all of his aspects are present at every single existent point. And if one of those aspects is omni-benevolence - total perfect goodness- Then that would mean that God's perfect goodness fills every point in existence. There can't be any place where it is absent. How can evil exist anywhere, given that everyplace is maximally occupied by God's goodness?
"Can you not read English? John FLATLY states PRECISELY that, in practically THOSE VERY WORDS!" No it doesn't. It says "while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb" Going. Doesn't say it was still dark when she got there. She went with several other women, they have a ways to walk, meet up, it isn't an instantaneous event. From the gospels, she was up before dark, going to the tomb, but with all she had to do and walk, it could be dawn when she and the other women arrived.
[count.]think something bad will happen, and one reason why would be "placebo". If you just feel insulted or angered by a so called "curse"-word, you are most likely just too sensitive and/or take it too personal.
"the two genealogies COULD be reconciled by Levirite responsibility" No, Mary's lineage in Luke goes back to King David through his son Nathan. Joseph's lineage in Matthew goes back to King David through his son Solomon. They are different lineages. One is Mary's and the other is Joseph's. They cover it both ways, so Jesus is descended from David through both parents.
Lets take it another step. I love my wife. Thats a "subjective" experience. You ask me to PROVE that I love my wife. How can I do that? I cant. Does that mean I dont love my wife? No. Does that mean love isn't real? No. My subjective feelings cant count as proof - yet this thing I feel is not any less real! Anyone who's ever been in love can vouch for that. Now someone might say "oh but we can see the brain chemicals!" - true, but the brain chemicals are not love.
Check Matt's face at 5.26....that is the face of a man with a prophecy that he has 100% certainty will be proven in 3. .2...1...aaaaand Jeff's head explodes.
Matthew was writing to Jews to convince them Jesus was the messiah. He would only include arguments he thought were convincing to a audience that knew Jewish prophecies very well. His use of the words "prophets" rather than "prophet" show it is not a particular prophecy he meant. Instead it is the prophecies he would be of a low and despised condition, and would be rejected. These were fully accomplished in his being an inhabitant of Nazareth and the audience would easily make the connection.
"Really? That's news to me. Name such a hostile Jewish source that says that Heli was Mary's father." The Jewish Talmud, in the Gemara, also mentions that the father of Mary was Heli. Chagigah 77:4 The Talmud insists on calling Mary by the name Miriam, but it consistently does so throughout.
NT Wasn't "written" in Greek, it was translated into Greek. It, (like the rest of the bible) was written in Hebrew. The word Faith was the same as "firm" in the Hebrew. There language always had concrete ideas whereas the Greek language always had "abstract" ideas that made a word have vague meanings. They would call a pencil "write" because that was it's function,
"if you really think that "Bob went to the game" is not at all inconsistent with "Bob & Steve went to the game," try that in a court of law and see how far you get." You would get very far, imagine someone making the "Bob went to the game" statement and then you trying to prosecute the person for perjury because John also went. You would be laughed out of court, the statement say nothing about John. It only talks about Bob, and if Bob did go to the game then it is 100% true.
Faith 1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony. [1913 Webster] Of course secondary definitions probably exist... but for the word to be useful this is roughly what it should be used for. Personal experiences are not proof for anybody else, and often not even for yourself. Between lies, delusions and misinterpretations the eye witness is made the weakest evidence around.
@msteele79 what would be the perfect compensation to the owners of the horse / my idea would be to raise the horse from the dead ,= perfect compensation
What I'm saying is *if* there is a god, based on what we observe and the weakness of the actual evidence Christians claim to have, then we can determine that if there is a god at all, that he has no interest in giving evidence of his own existence, and thus most likely would not have accidently allowed there to be some way to prove he exists. You may be right about what god should do under the Christians definition, but I think that definition is probably wrong.
@sanechipmunks "If there is no evidence, why assume something exists?" You wouldn't have asked this question if had read my fist reply closely I'm not saying assumptions should be made about whether or not god exist. My point was that "evidence" only goes as far as what we have to study. Once again, people "believed" that the earth was round before they had "evidence", and they were right. Again, "Not everything in existence has observable "evidence" of it's existence."
I have to tip my hat to you guys.. I can’t imagine debating w/ religious people on this topic day in and day out. And, 99% of the callers just don’t seem to have enough common sense to admit they just don’t have a leg to stand on.. It’s like trying to convince a child, vegetables are good for you.. (Sorry, bad example but I’m sure you know what I mean)
@msteele79 to love your neighbor as your self, is immoral? Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
I must apologize as well, when you brought up Thomas, I thought that YOU were a christian so I attempted to use the same text to give a deeper understanding of what I was trying to explain. I don't claim any religion. I try to seek "truth".
"It must involve EVERY word spoken" We aren't given even close to every word spoken. Even a single conversation would be longer than any gospel book. That's not possible to do, given how little dialogue we have in the NT. "match up with known history of the Roman provinces in Palestine at the time" We know Jesus birth is early 1st century, but respected scholars have placed his birth as early as 4 BCE and as late as 6 CE. So matching up is just guess work.
"Matthew assigns to the prophet Jeremy [Jeremiah] a prophecy actually found in the Book of Zechariah" What? Buying the potter's field? You are too focused on the price. Jeremiah 19:1-13; and Jeremiah 32:6-9 are also prophecies of buying the potter's field.
Something wild, crazy, unbelievable happens to you. Everyone agrees, the chances of that happening are one in a million! Guess what? In America, over 300 people had that exact, 1:1,000,000 chance event happen to them too. World wide, 7,000 people experienced it. Aren't YOU special?
"If a God creator exists, would He or She or It or whatever the appropriate pronoun is, prefer a kind of sodden blockhead who worships while understanding nothing? Or would He prefer His votaries to admire the real universe in all its intricacy?" - Carl Sagan Real life is way cooler than fiction, I refuse to spend my days looking good for the space monster hoping to get into his royal academy for sheep.
The purpose of Matthew's geneology is not time, it is linkage to David. That is all Matthew is proving to his Jewish audience, they know how long ago David was. Luke is doing something else entirely. So time is a non-issue to Matthew.
The word Luke used translated by some as governor is a very general term, hegemon, which in extra-Biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the Bible it was used as a broad term for procurators and to general rulers. We know during Varus appointment as the Syrian governor, Quirinius was doing military expeditions in the Eastern provinces of the Roman empire and might be placed in charge of the Palestine census implemented during that period. --
They are making people think. THere are christian shows that are WAY more offensive to other faiths and atheists than the guys/ladies from AE could ever be. If they offend you that is just too bad. You dont have a right not to be offended and if you dont like hearing other opinions dont watch the show. Take your own advice and let others believe what they chose to believe...or not believe.
On the president Bush quote, I was talking about the video, where the video guy says how much that quote, to use his words "bothered him". For all I know that could be you, I don't know, but whoever it is on video says "what bothers me" regarding the quote.
Witness testimony ALONE is not sufficient evidence, otherwise anyone could say anything about anyone & get them into trouble. In your example the witness testimony would have to be corroborated by other evidence. There would be signs of forced entry that the police could see for themselves, goods would be missing, other witnesses saw the robber in the vicinity, fingerprints on door handles etc. If someone just says they were robbed but there is no other evidence then it could be pure fantasy.
@xxRockst4r Did You read my last comment carefully ? I wrote the following. Correction: MOST (NOT all or everyone) theists especially christians claim to know a god exists !
yeah which is why i dont understand how someone could believe in creationism when almost every field of scientific study proves it to be false. im not just talking about evolution, im talking about platetechtonics, radiometric dating, red shifted galaxies, stars that are millions of lightyears away which we can see. and alot of other evidence.
Truth is stranger then fiction.I dont believe in religion but the doctrines and spiritual evidence show alot..religion isnt fake just misinterpretated took me awhile to understand that."God" is the spiritual web the connects us all and living things.Quantum physics proves there is an energy that connects us to all living things.....
When when people like this guy tell me that I've seen evidence I just either refuse it or don't know I saw that, I explained to them that my disbelief in God is not a choice. I do not choose do not believe. I look at the world I look at science I look at how we figure things out and like they said I use my brain and I'm sorry but I have seen nothing that provide evidence for a God. And if this supposed God showed me evidence and I didn't know that it was evident then that is not evidence that is good enough to actually convince me. Again that's not my choice but I can't truthfully say I believe in God. I don't say that there is no God because I don't know. But, the most I could do is lie and say I believe but if there is a God he's going to know I'm lying correct? So the only thing that would truly change my mind and make me know that God exists is evidence that would warrant true belief and if God has shown me that evidence and I didn't notice then that is not what I'm talking about because that is not evidence that would warrant true belief.
hey im from israel and i know perfect hebrew. ive read the bible in the original hebrew without the bad translation that the english versions have. and if you read it how it was originally written you can clearly see the whole thing in contradictory to itself and makes almost no sense.
"Someone making a statement does not equate to scientific evidence, or else the Loch Ness monster exists..." Again you are confusing evidence and proof. Observation is one of the key scientific forms of evidence. Dian Fossey's obsrvations of gorillas greatly advanced scientific knowledge of them. It is not automatically proof. So a credible person's observations of whatever they saw in a lake is evidence, but it is not proof. Evidence and proof are two different things.
If you don't believe that God/Jesus is real then why bring up the Thomas story? I would have approached this differently. Basically, I'm saying that Faith and Belief are not "AS" synonymous as it's been taught to be. "having faith" is a very modern philosophy. In the time that the bible was written these words had different meanings. As a matter of fact, the words "belief" or "faith" didn't even exist.
didn't Jesus say you can do these things and more like walk on water, multiply fishes and bread, turn water into wine, raise the dead or even raise a dead pet for any nonbeliever, and that is the way for a nonbeliever to be a believer. Take that advise and call back when you have practiced your craft the way Jesus told you to do.
Its a bit different to mention something that is obivous, testable and veriable, in this case your train line, as opposed to a non-testable, inobvious and unveriable concept such as a god and said god's punishments.
"Atheists don't have overwhelming evidence against the existence of God." your right, we also dont have "overwhelming evidence against the existence of" unicorns or easter bunnies or santa clause or zeus, so you must believe these are just as real as god. tell me, how do YOU disprove something that cant be proven?
"And Nazareth was no hamlet, village, nor even small town. Luke calls it a CITY." The KJV uses the word "city" but that really isn't accurate. NIV and modern translations say "town" not city. Jerome called it a viculus or mere village.
