Unbelievable that we are still talking about whether it would be reasonable to believe that Jesus flew up into the atmosphere after his resurrection. This is just insane! We are talking about people who pretty much thought the world was basically a plate with a dome over it, and above that, the heavens-and who didn’t have really great grasp on things like “gravity.” It is INSANE that we still have millions and millions of people still think this is actually a thing. This is just. Nucking. Futz.

@Grandlett

Жыл бұрын

These people? Wow antisemite

@maggiebarrett7300

Жыл бұрын

“Nucking Futz” - I love that👍

@aroemaliuged4776

Жыл бұрын

But our lord and savior never lived in a dome… You talk sheet

@aroemaliuged4776

Жыл бұрын

You don’t understand my savior Kathryn

@fredbohm4728

Жыл бұрын

@@aroemaliuged4776 He never lived at all.

During a religious class for new church members I attended many years ago, the minister, when listing characteristics of the type of man Jesus may have been, included that Jesus may have been a regular guy that had a mental disorder. That was the first and only thing he said during those 4 classes that made sense. And that still holds true to me to this day.

@GameTimeWhy

Жыл бұрын

Was he smote for the blasphemy?

@elmolewis9123

Жыл бұрын

@@GameTimeWhy Despite being an alcoholic for many years back then, he lived to 85+. So if he was smote, god must have been busy for 40 years before he carried out the smoting.

@GodlessFiend

Жыл бұрын

Your pastor was on point then

@nealgrimes4382

Жыл бұрын

@@MikeJJJenkin Petty insults and fat shaming, what a truly pathetic comment.

@jonnawyatt

Жыл бұрын

​@@MikeJJJenkin 🎶Oh lorrd it's hard to be humble, when ya perfect in everyway 🎶

I appreciate the structured layout of the argument. Very well done! I would have just said “no,” and stopped the video.

@landsgevaer

Жыл бұрын

Was gonna respond the same. That these "questions" are considered ("modern day"!?) debates is silly. These are 2000-yo debates, and even back then learned people knew it was nonsense. Can we still manage climate change? Should we have himan duties beside human rights? Is a nuclear winter still a relevant danger? Thóse are modern day debates.

@nealgrimes4382

Жыл бұрын

@@landsgevaer It 's a modern debate because many people still believe it, sadly.

@landsgevaer

Жыл бұрын

@@nealgrimes4382 Not in the part of the world where I live, fortunately.

@fuckhandles.

Жыл бұрын

@@landsgevaer lucky bastard.

@landsgevaer

Жыл бұрын

@@fuckhandles. Surely you were aware that there were such secularized countries, I hope?

They would have to demonstrate - Ascensions are reasonable - A method to test if ascension stories are true - A method to test if they are false - And explain where the bodies are.

@whatwecalllife7034

Жыл бұрын

They'll say if they could test it then it wouldn't be a miracle! 😵

@mrbungle2627

Жыл бұрын

If we did test this, we would then have to prove our brain isn't deceiving us or that we aren't simply exposing a natural phenomena. If we prove that, then we'd have to go even further. Skepticism is about shifting the goal-post, it's not about actually being skeptical (at least in the KZread comment section). I find it hilarious high school graduates that can't actually comprehend most scientific principles wave their "big dick" around begging everyone to conform to their requests.

@charlesparadis5716

Жыл бұрын

cannon launch?

@integrationalpolytheism

Жыл бұрын

When I was a Christian, none of this would have bothered me. If god can organise an ascension/parousia then God won't have any issues changing physical bodies into spiritual bodies or whatever. Just like if god can bring a guy back to life after a day and a half, then that issue of bringing back billions of his gut flora to life etc is no big deal either. There are a lot of naturalistic problems about the claims of Christianity which make sense to the irreligious, but actually aren't a problem for the faithful.

@digbycrankshaft7572

Жыл бұрын

​@@integrationalpolytheismI think you mean "which DON'T make sense to the irreligious"

I concur 100% thanks Matt for doing what you do

This was very well researched and presented. Thank you for all of the work that you have put into this, and all of your other presentations.

'My apponant...should be able to tailor an amazing rebuttal..." I won't hold my breath...

As well as Matt's arguments are laid out and presented, you know this will be countered by pretzel logic and word salads and other nonsense by "believers". 🤦

@aroemaliuged4776

Жыл бұрын

You are a fan boy than can’t and won’t have an original thought

@jonnawyatt

Жыл бұрын

​@@aroemaliuged4776 Would be interesting to see alternatives. Anyone can look for alternatives. Even you.👍

@ancientfiction5244

Жыл бұрын

​@aroemaliuged4776 Indeed there are. It was just a legend that grew over time. *Miracles and Apotheosis in the Ancient Mediterranean World* *"It should first be noted that miracle stories are not uncommon in the literature of this period.* Ancient people believed in a world permeated by the supernatural and readily accepted stories of miracles and believed in stories of visions and visitors from the world of the divine all the time. *Even very sober and sometimes sceptical historians like Tacitus will pass on accounts of miracles that he clearly accepts and expects his audience to believe as historical.* So when we read stories of how the emperor Augustus was miraculously conceived by the god Apollo, or how his birth was presaged by a new star in the heavens, or how Julius Caesar was seen ascending into the heaven after his death or how Vespasian healed lame and blind people who asked him for a miracle, we accept that these stories represent the kinds of things ancient people genuinely believed about great men. Or we accept that they are at least told to indicate that the man in question was great. *What we don't do is accept that simply because people believed these stories they must mean that they really happened.* And this is even when the stories are presented to us by a very careful historian and given to us as verified fact. Take Tacitus' account of the miracles of the emperor Vespasian: "In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. .... And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. *The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood."* (Histories, IV, 81) Tacitus was closely connected to the court of Vespasian's sons and successors, Titus and Domitian, and so in a position to know the "persons actually present" and to consult them long after Vespasian's death "when nothing is to be gained by falsehood". He was also a very careful historian who scorned those who took rumour and stories as fact without checking them against sources and eye witnesses and who condemned those who "catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history" (Annals, IV,11). *Despite this, I don't know anyone who would read the account above and conclude that the emperor really had magical healing powers and genuinely used his supernatural abilities to heal people.* The fact that even a judicious and often sceptical analyst like Tacitus accepted this story shows us just how readily people in the ancient world accepted claims of the miraculous. *One form of miracle that was widely believed in was the idea of apotheosis, where a great man is physically taken up in to the heavens and raised to divine status.* It was claimed that Romulus, the founder of Rome, underwent this process and later appeared to his friend Julius Proculus to declare his new celestial status. The same claim was made about Julius Caesar and Augustus, with supposed witnesses observing their ascent into the heavenly realm. Lucian's satire The Passing of Peregrinus includes his scorn for the claim that the philosopher was taken up into the celestial realm and was later seen walking around on earth after his death. The Chariton novel Callirhoe has its hero Chaereas visiting the tomb of his recently dead wife, saying he *"arrived at the tomb at daybreak"* where he *"found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright."* Others are afraid to enter the tomb, but Chaereas goes in and finds his wife's *body missing* and concludes she has been taken up by the gods." If you want to read how the resurrection legend grew over time, read the below article by Tim O'Neill who is a former Christian and has been studying the scholarship for over 25 years. *Answer* What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1 - Quora You can also read the below article by a former Christian apologist on how he agrees with the mainstream scholarship that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity. *“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"* *"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53 *"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"* *"Jesus did not fulfill any messianic prophecies - Reductio Ad Absalom"* *"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*

@elmolewis9123

Жыл бұрын

@@aroemaliuged4776 You might want to try another language translator - the one you're using isn't working well.

@aroemaliuged4776

Жыл бұрын

@@elmolewis9123 Wow… A language translator… Could you be more biased and not help your cause….

How could it ever be reasonable given the claim, which is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable?

@Grandlett

Жыл бұрын

Is the big bang both of those things?

@jettbrandes2051

Жыл бұрын

@@GrandlettIt’s neither

@glenhill9884

11 ай бұрын

It's "reasonable" to believers because they have been indoctrinated to accept it, they have never thought about it otherwise, they don't apply good standards of reasoning, and they just like the story.

@lilfr4nkie

9 ай бұрын

@@Grandlettyes

@JasonTaylor90210

4 ай бұрын

Why is it reasonable that I have to have humility but God himself and other christians don't have to and get to get away with it?

Speaking of Pink Floyd the album "Animals' was my first hint of Atheism as a teenager that I can remember. Thank you, Matt Dillahunty and Pink Floyd.

Excellent. Thank you.

7:18 I love it.

Any show Matt is in I’m watching it✌🏽 Thank you Matt for all that you do,now I’m “free”

This really might have been his best work

7:14 I got such a good chuckle out of this hahahaha

Obscured by Clouds is one of my favorite Pink Floyd albums! Super impressed Matt knows about it 🤘

Short answer: No. No, it's not reasonable. Imagine a human acting like a child's unleashed helium balloon, minus the trailing string.

@EllEss331

Жыл бұрын

🎈Exactly🎈

@jamesparson

Жыл бұрын

Recently, I have been seeing advertisements for some product and hit has a kid being carried away via a balloon. The kid is smiling. The people watching are smiling. What a great product. I am horrified by it. At some point his is going to fall and kill himself. The people should be be yelling at him to let go before he gets too high.

100% excellent, informative and easy to follow. I like this particular format.

Good one Matt. The Cliffe Knechtle video you did certainly showed what a nasty debater he was. Thanks.

@digbycrankshaft7572

Жыл бұрын

That creep highlights all that's wrong with apologists and their false arguments

Is Crist’s Ascension reasonable? 🖐🏻Please Sir, 🖐🏻Me Sir… Is it NO? 😂

If your opponent can watch this and tailor his opening statement to counter it, could we call it a "prebuttal?" Or would it just be a buttal

Thanks Mat

15:32 - *Minor correction:* "Forty" isn't "Jewish numerology." Back then, "forty" was a way of saying "a lot" or "many". For example, in the story of Noah's flood, "40 days and 40 nights" would be more accurately (though, less literally) translated as "many days and many nights." It's not meant to be "magical," or even literal (as some people take it), it's just a kind of slang for "many" which we don't use anymore. Anyways, as always, love your stuff, I just don't want to see you making any bad arguments based on inaccuracies like this one.

@CharlesPayet

Жыл бұрын

Can you provide citations that “forty” meant”a lot” or “many?” I have never heard or read this from any scholar who speaks Hebrew or Greek.

@HiEv001

Жыл бұрын

@@CharlesPayet From part of the section on the number 40 in the "Numbers: An Overview" page of a certain dictionary website (which, if I give the name, KZread doesn't allow my post): _"Forty often appears in Islamic lore as a coterminus [sic] with "very many," such as Ali Baba's forty thieves; groups of forty dervishes, forty saints, or forty Christian martyrs; and the customary selection of forty hadith, representing the fullness of the tradition. In the Persian and Turkish tradition, women miraculously give birth to forty children. As forty in the Old Testament means "one generation," it is a temporal measure. In Turkey, where the number forty is extremely popular, great events and feasts last forty days and forty nights; to see someone "once in forty years" means "rarely."_ Admittedly not the best of sources, but I found it a bit difficult to look up. Still, there are plenty of examples there where various cultures have used "forty" to mean "many". Technically that doesn't shoot down the idea that it was _also_ a mystical number to the ancient Jews who wrote the Bible, it probably was, but it at least shows that that non-mystical definition is another plausible reason for its use. Even if you see that as "grasping at straws," don't think that your opponent wouldn't see that point as a weakness and then try to go down a rabbit hole because of it, pointlessly wasting time. So, unless you're willing to provide evidence that the word was only being used in a mystical way in the Bible, I'd say that it's probably a talking point that's better off being avoided. Hopefully that satisfies your query. 🙂

@CharlesPayet

Жыл бұрын

@@HiEv001 interesting, I’ll have to look into that a bit more. Thank you.

@digbycrankshaft7572

Жыл бұрын

Why not say "many" instead of specify an actual number which could lead to confusion?

@HiEv001

Жыл бұрын

@@digbycrankshaft7572 For the same reason why we sometimes say things like, "Wow, that was one in a million!" when it wasn't actually a 1 in 1 million chance. It was understood as an expression at the time. Of course, if the Bible really was was written by God, you'd think that God would have known that it would cause confusion, and thus would have had things stated more clearly to avoid that future problem. So you're right in that respect.

"and then he has to confound languages because they are trying to be humanistic " This line in context is so hilarious. 😂

LOVE YOU MATT

Thanks Matt good video... May I suggest something? I want your channel to gain more traction and grow exponentially... if you would invite theists (islam and Christians) to your show and have them quote scripture for equal amounts of "good and negative influences" found in them. If they can find negative ones, you are going to discuss with more literate and rational individuals that HAVE influence in their community. Just discuss calmly and ask them why they think it has a good/bad influence over the people that read/repeat these words (prayers). Then you can categorize them in a summary under the video/as you discuss/after the video. I'm almost certain that all the good messages can be categorized under one subject (there aren't that many generic ideas that are fundamentally good, but it rendered teaching the subject in school.. "obsolete" then we've ignored it or classified it under stigmatized subjects while... you've discussed it without diving into the different specific principles: morality). MAAAATT... Do it! Knock Religion out and don't give me credit for this. 100% is the solution.......................................................... Heck, after, you have a goldmine of the most literate people among them telling them that it's flawed. It's all we need. In a couple of months, you can have those same individuals come and chat about their slow but obvious departure from more and more statements that made no sense. One that I despise in Islam is the black and white thinking that Genuinely instigates (if not creates) oppression in the mind... distinct opposition as it becomes an automatic negative "thought" (ant). People that feel in opposition to what structures their stability will trigger their sympathetic nervous system's defensive state. Discuss... don't argue :/ Have them bring up the culprits and let it simmer! Make a giant stew and we can all - actually - have a laugh together. Life may be bleak, but... together, it isn't so bad! (it's great, really...)

Much love from Australia Matt! Friendly note I think you might have a typo in the title

I really wish Christians would be specific about what point while rising up in the air Jesus' body stopped being physical. What did it turn into? What parts of his body changed first? His head? His toes? All at once? Where does earth end and Heaven begin? If Jesus was on the opposite side of the planet would he sink into the earth's crust because Heaven is only "up" if you're in the Middle East? So many more unanswered questions.

@darkwind1812

Жыл бұрын

Maybe Jesus just transformed his body into a spiritual body when he was out of the sight of his disciples. I don't know why you focus on that issue it's obvious that if God exists his son Jesus can do such a thing. The issue is because people don't believe in God. Besides heaven is not a physical place but a spiritual one, it's not in the physical universe. So I think God used the sky as a reference for human to understand. So I think that Jesus kind of teleported to that spiritual place. The universe was created by God and the heaven already existed so it makes no sense that Jesus went to the literal sky.

@xmillion1704

Жыл бұрын

@@darkwind1812 "it's obvious that if God exists his son Jesus can do such a thing" And yet the anonymous gospel of Mark clearly portrays "the Son" as specifically lacking knowledge of something known to the Father. I'm not clear regarding the exact nature of your assertion, but clearly the Son is described as lacking omniscience, but this may actually be nearly congruent with the Father if we may safely assume that he is the god of Genesis 3:9 who seems to lack knowledge of Adam's whereabouts in the garden. "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Mark 13:32 "And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" Genesis 3:9 Based upon the beliefs you expressed, I'm going to assume that you believe that "the heaven" of Genesis 1:1 is not describing the heavenly abode of god, and that you may likely believe that Enoch's and Elijah's bodies were transformed into spiritual bodies upon translation in order to facilitate their entry into and existence within the heaven you describe as not being a physical place.

@EatHoneyBeeHappy

Жыл бұрын

@@darkwind1812 I don't think it's obvious if God exists Jesus could do such a thing, it's not obvious to me. A lot of confusion could be avoided if more Christians described it as a teleportation rather than an ascension. Not all the confusion of course, there are still questions but a lot of it.

@darkwind1812

Жыл бұрын

@@xmillion1704 well, I think that Jesus and God are not the same. But regarding heaven it depends on the context when it's referring to a physical place or the heaven where God lives. In Genesis 1:1 I think it's referring to the sky or the universe. Since Jesus and angels already existed in a spiritual heaven at the time it can't be the spiritual one but the physical one, the sky or the universe. I think Genesis chapter 1 and 2 are about human creation and things related to us.

@xmillion1704

Жыл бұрын

@@darkwind1812 Yeah, I did not assert they are the same entity nor did I ascribe that belief to you. I was offering biblical evidence in refutation your seeming to claim that (paraphrasing), "if god can do it, then Jesus can do it", unless I misunderstood that which you were asserting.

Highlighting that a consistently-applied standard of evidence is paramount is important. It’s what I find the most lacking in religious people. Like, there’s a part of their brain that seems to deal explicitly with that. I’ve run into it when talking to a Trump supporter as well. I think what it might boil down to is that the reason they ACTUALLY believe something is because they know they believed it yesterday. And they grant their belief yesterday with inability. They just don’t remember how they initially started believing it (probably just inculcation and repetition), because for everyone belief is a feeling that is associated with various claims. Careful thinkers are now able to regulate what claims get that feeling tired to them, and try to remember why they applied that feeling of belief. And it makes a really big difference.

@starfishsystems

Жыл бұрын

That's remarkably well though out. We humans are faced with a peculiar artifact of our own evolution: that our minds are divided into unconscious and conscious processes. Because the majority of our thinking is unconscious, we (that is, the part of our identified selves that is aware of conscious intention) have acquired the habit of training our unconscious minds to do most of the routine work for us. We consciously learn how to drive, for example, and then driving becomes substantially unconscious. It's our unconscious which delivers emotions such as recognition, conviction, doubt, and so on. If we've long practiced skepticism, we may receive an emotional warning from our unconscious when we encounter a flawed argument. At that point we can consciously (albeit laboriously) walk through it to see whether something doesn't add up. The point is, we don't have the bandwidth to do everything consciously. People who are credulous rather than skeptical face the same issue, but their training of the unconscious proceeds along very different lines. I'm not familiar with how this works, but it seems to involve a lot of storytelling and appeals to emotion. So, rather than the unconscious mind if a skeptic recognizing, say, an argument which applies Modus Ponens either correctly or not, the credulous mind is recognizing that a familiar story is being enacted, and is activating its familiar emotional points of reference. These are two vastly different cognitive strategies. No wonder it's difficult to bridge between them! And you're absolutely right. Both strategies exercise a particular shortcut in which we don't constantly try to rework everything from scratch. We lean heavily some unconscious message of "rightness" to signal when something that we vaguely remember made sense yesterday should be regarded as making sense today. But the truth is, we're often relying on an emotion as a proxy for what we hope is the work of a trustworthy unconscious. Is it in fact trustworthy? How do we verify this? In science we tend to nurture doubt, not because doubt is pleasant, but because it's more important to get the facts straight. In religion we tend to nurture faith, because it's more important to feel reassured. Both of these are exercises in training the unconscious.

The ascension makes the resurrection pointless.

"This is all just beginning; We've only charted 0.19% of our galaxy. The rest is out there just waiting."

'Matt, the New Testament is not accurate history.' ~ Future Cliffe Knechtle

@ShutUpWesley

Жыл бұрын

And neither is it science, nor does it make any scientific claims 😅

“Obscured by clouds”-Leonidas used cloud metaphor soooo much better: “In umbra igitur pugbabimus”

No more unreasonable than the ascent of Romulus.

6:25, how is it this omniscient and omnipotent god is unable to do what human parents manage to do on a consistent and regular basis: have children who love them?

@CrowManyClouds

Жыл бұрын

God seems to have taken parenting classes from Susan Smith. (Noted drowner of her children.)

@ShutUpWesley

Жыл бұрын

​@@CrowManyCloudsWell, he supposedly send a flood that drowned millions of his children, so I agree😅

@chrlpolk

Жыл бұрын

Easier to have an abortion, I guess. 😂

Degates you say... :)

Group hallucination.

A body leaving Earth's atmosphere, and at a great speed to leave the pull of Earth itself, would burn up!

7:20 I burst out laughing at that one!

Rembrandt's painting doesn't paint just a few words; it paints a thousand words that just weren't in the bible haha

Hi, Matt. Hope you could do a video as well whether the doctrine of Hypostatic Union can be reasonable.

@cygnustsp

Жыл бұрын

I had a JEHOVAH's Witness background when I actually started looking into Orthodox Christianity I couldn't believe I never learned anything about that, only that it wasn't biblical. Later I realized that the church could only maintain an internally consistent doctrine with it, which made pretty much me stop believing altogether.

No. How? Ascend up from the Matterhorn, what happens? Open the door on the ISS, what happens? Where? Bodily? How?

I wanna hear the car story now Matt, you have to come on

I'm picturing Poochy as Matt describes the Boobly account of this ascension.

Is it reasonable to believe that a dead man stood on a cloud that came down from the sky and took him away to a place called heaven ? . Ummm , let me think , ummmmm , NO . 😂

19:06 People believe that Rembrandt painting is equal to an authentic photograph.

Someone in your previous commented this, but repeat it here: Jezus should have stayed in the tomb untill this day so people could actually visit him. Disappearing is stupid to do

@kjmav10135

Жыл бұрын

If we take this in the context of Greco-Roman mythology, he sorta had to ascend, because it was the Greco-Roman tradition for demigod/kings to do stuff like that. Taken metaphorically, the point of this ascension, especially following on the heels of the Great Commission, was to get Jesus out of the way so Jesus’ followers would “go into all the world” and begin to do the works of social justice described in the early chapters of Luke themselves. Jesus was just there to get them started. In this mainline, progressive interpretation, none of this has to be literally historical to be relevant.

If you are willing to accept a claim based on a standard of evidence for which you would reject another claim, then that standard is insufficient to establish reasonableness. Yes, so true. My problem is that when I point that out using other words to Christian believers, they change the "standard". For example, when I say faith is used by Muslims, but you can't both be true, they say that Islam is an empty shell instead of directly addressing the issue of standards of evidence. In fact, no matter how I put it to them to compare other religions' claims of miracles or whatever, it seems to fall back to this OTHER standard. And, they don't get it, that they are being unreasonable. They don't see that you have to compare based on the same standard. VERY frustrating. Some will go a step further and just say that their faith works for them, stomp their feet, cross their arms, and that's it, even when I point out that a Muslim will do the same.

When Christians say that 1st century Jews had no concept of a resurrection before the end times, I always think of "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" and the Prophet Elijah. A bodely resurrection? Like the 'no-touch' gardner, the stranger on the way to Emaus? Like Jesus talking with Moses and Elijah in Matthew 17?

Typo in the title, Matt

@natecrandall3130

Жыл бұрын

came to say this haha

My question is *What’s the Ascension exactly?* And what I mean is I’d like to know what its meaning is for a modern Christian who, I presume, doesn’t believe in a flat earth with a solid dome as a sky and a god physically residing above that sky. If the Christian god is timeless, immaterial, omnipresent, etc. - and Jesus is god - what’s the ascension? Where was Jesus ascending too if he’s present everywhere? Why up? Because, if the claim is that the episode is literal and not just symbolic, the details and mechanics of the fact need clarification, don’t they?

I'm sure Matt is saying something important in this video, but I can't get past Atheist Degates. Maybe it should be DeAtheist Degates -is DeChriist Deascension Dereasonable?

@chrlpolk

Жыл бұрын

I’m not hearing what you’re hearing. It may be your audio device. Try using headphones and see if you hear the same thing.

"Is Christ's Ascension reasonable?" If you accept the premises that: - Christ existed - Christ was divine - Christ was resurrected after his death then it may be reasonable. But since there is no reason to accept any of those three premises, there is no reason to accept the ascension.

10:00 well,though it doesn't happen on camera, the youth at the end of the gospel of Mark says that Jesus has been taken up. The author of gLuke is using that as a source, though, but it isn't just gLuke and Acts.

👍

👋 "Degates" you may want to correct that

@user-yn5sk5ru5g

Жыл бұрын

He Louis my vegan bro

@chrlpolk

Жыл бұрын

Where is that? I’m not hearing it. I think this is an audio device issue. Some people are heading “debates” but I’m clearly hearing “debates”. Try putting headphones on and see if you get the same results.

@LouisGedo

Жыл бұрын

@@chrlpolk It was in the actual text of the title (clearly a typo)......it's since been corrected. 👍

*Miracles and Apotheosis in the Ancient Mediterranean World* *"It should first be noted that miracle stories are not uncommon in the literature of this period.* Ancient people believed in a world permeated by the supernatural and readily accepted stories of miracles and believed in stories of visions and visitors from the world of the divine all the time. *Even very sober and sometimes sceptical historians like Tacitus will pass on accounts of miracles that he clearly accepts and expects his audience to believe as historical.* So when we read stories of how the emperor Augustus was miraculously conceived by the god Apollo, or how his birth was presaged by a new star in the heavens, or how Julius Caesar was seen ascending into the heaven after his death or how Vespasian healed lame and blind people who asked him for a miracle, we accept that these stories represent the kinds of things ancient people genuinely believed about great men. Or we accept that they are at least told to indicate that the man in question was great. *What we don't do is accept that simply because people believed these stories they must mean that they really happened.* And this is even when the stories are presented to us by a very careful historian and given to us as verified fact. Take Tacitus' account of the miracles of the emperor Vespasian: "In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. .... And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. *The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood."* (Histories, IV, 81) Tacitus was closely connected to the court of Vespasian's sons and successors, Titus and Domitian, and so in a position to know the "persons actually present" and to consult them long after Vespasian's death "when nothing is to be gained by falsehood". He was also a very careful historian who scorned those who took rumour and stories as fact without checking them against sources and eye witnesses and who condemned those who "catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history" (Annals, IV,11). *Despite this, I don't know anyone who would read the account above and conclude that the emperor really had magical healing powers and genuinely used his supernatural abilities to heal people.* The fact that even a judicious and often sceptical analyst like Tacitus accepted this story shows us just how readily people in the ancient world accepted claims of the miraculous. *One form of miracle that was widely believed in was the idea of apotheosis, where a great man is physically taken up in to the heavens and raised to divine status.* It was claimed that Romulus, the founder of Rome, underwent this process and later appeared to his friend Julius Proculus to declare his new celestial status. The same claim was made about Julius Caesar and Augustus, with supposed witnesses observing their ascent into the heavenly realm. Lucian's satire The Passing of Peregrinus includes his scorn for the claim that the philosopher was taken up into the celestial realm and was later seen walking around on earth after his death. The Chariton novel Callirhoe has its hero Chaereas visiting the tomb of his recently dead wife, saying he *"arrived at the tomb at daybreak"* where he *"found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright."* Others are afraid to enter the tomb, but Chaereas goes in and finds his wife's *body missing* and concludes she has been taken up by the gods." If you want to read how the resurrection legend grew over time, read the below article by Tim O'Neill who is a former Christian and has been studying the scholarship for over 25 years. *Answer* What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1 - Quora You can also read the below article by a former Christian apologist on how he agrees with the mainstream scholarship that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity. *“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"* *"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53 *"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"* *"Jesus did not fulfill any messianic prophecies - Reductio Ad Absalom"* *"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*

Would be interesting to see you address/discuss (with the debater) the accessibility of believing this proposition to begin with and what the long-term consequences might be to individuals and society. Because many people accept this as true, given such limited data, I have to imagine how many people actually even believe the same thing just when it comes to this one claim and how thinking like this could snowball into something more dangerous or absurd.

NO end of video

I cannot get through.

The Ascension is actually one of the biggest stories of the Bible that I fixate on - mostly because if Christ didn't ascend He would still just be here on Earth founding the ONLY religion where the religion's deity is bodily present and able to answer questions and ... perhaps perform miracles. The ascension itself makes no sense as an Omni-God doesn't need to 'go places' or to 'perform labour over time' because that god can be in both or all places at once and can create finished products instantly with no labour. That Christ had to ascend is actually an indictment against him being divine because mandatory practices are an indication of lack. Why did the risen Christ LACK the state of being that came with ascension? It doesn't add up.

If Jesus ascended, Romulus did too. The only reason Jesus (and Romulus) ascended was because heaven was supposed to be literally above them. It wasn't a place outside of space and time. If it was, Jesus would have disappeared instead of flying around like Superman.

My opening statement: Is Christ's ascension reasonable? No. Thank you for coming to this debate, and goodbye.

@KBosch-xp2ut

Жыл бұрын

Assertions don’t win debates. You’d lose.

@michaelsommers2356

Жыл бұрын

@@KBosch-xp2ut I've yet to see a theist's argument that was anything but assertions.

@KBosch-xp2ut

Жыл бұрын

@@michaelsommers2356 I agree. But your opening statement was also simply an assertion.

I suspect every single Christian denomination would say that the ascension is critical to soteriology. Either Jesus died after his resurrection or he didn't. If he did die then i don't see how any Christian soteriology would work. I think, whether or not they mention it in their doctrine, that all Christian denominations found their soteriology on the principle that Jesus didn't die after his resurrection.

@natew.7951

Жыл бұрын

In fact, the only thing separating the resurrection of Jesus from the resurrection of Lazarusof Bethany, Jairus' daughter, and all the other resurrections in the Bible is the ascension. Otherwise there's nothing special about Jesus

@kjmav10135

Жыл бұрын

I was UCC, and the ascension is not necessary in the UCC. Heck, a physical historical resurrection isn’t even necessary to our soteriology. We have a tendency toward the metaphorical. So, hate to poke a hole in your theory, but. There ya go.

@natew.7951

Жыл бұрын

@@kjmav10135 I don't think that really pokes a hole lol. It's one exception.

@kjmav10135

Жыл бұрын

@@natew.7951One exception = one hole. You can also ask most Episcopalians and mainline Methodists and Lutherans. There. Now we’re up to four holes.

@natew.7951

Жыл бұрын

@@kjmav10135 fair enough. Are you sure about Methodists and Lutherans? The ones I know don't think Jesus died a natural death. When I was a Christian, I didn't know any Christians that thought that

Is the idea of a “Christ/messiah” even reasonable? Ehh, not really.

Em-may-us

7:20 🤣🤣🤣

Why was the debate cancelled?

I wish Matt would come back to TAE. Some of the current hosts are just tedious to listen to, they waffle and don't get to the meat of it. The previous one was good but the one before that with Seth Andrews and co-host, I just couldn't do it.

@BooksForever

Жыл бұрын

If you find no joy there, then simply don’t put yourself through it. Select something else to watch or to read.

@arc001

Жыл бұрын

@BooksForever I love the show and I know Matt had a lot of experience and an attitude which I really enjoy. I keep thinking about how he would address questions. There are many good current hosts, Jim Barrows is my current favorite, Forest Valkai very good too but that's not the point really. Matt just handled the show and callers in a specific way and was professional and kept the show more in line.

@BooksForever

Жыл бұрын

@@arc001 - then consider yourself fortunate that you can now likely watch Matt appear more frequently on The Line than the once-weekly episodes of The Atheist Experience.

@chrlpolk

Жыл бұрын

@arc001 I’m binging “Two and a Half Men” and am 2eps away from the big change. So I feel your frustration. I don’t expect Matt would ever return to TAE, as there are many more venues available for him now that didn’t even exist when he started doing TAE. Certainly, there’s a matter of pay.

@EnglishMike

Жыл бұрын

@@arc001 I have a lot of time for Matt, especially in this format and his debates, but I don't miss him on TAE. I understand why he was often very combative when taking callers, but when it got to the point where one caller after another couldn't even finish a sentence before being harangued, I didn't see any point in watching any more. Wasn't my cup of tea.

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:45 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

In addition. You would think the God/man who supposedly bore THE most important message to mankind EVER....would spend some time writing it down himself before 'ascending'. You know, maybe write 7 more tiny human years and leave earth at 40? More glory, less ambiguity? 🤷‍♂️

You've cleared up my confusion after suffering an apologetics encounter where a spaghetti weave of misdirection tried to consolidate the storied. These Luke and John ascention conflicts are a bit more of an elephant in the room than Peter's four different denial narratives.

👏🙂

I like to think Voyager 1 passed Jesus up and will make it to heaven before him.

_Given that the Bible asserts that its deity is utterly incapable of changing its mind ... isn't it the case that all of the bumbling described by Mr.Dillahunty is not only essential, but theologically inescapable?_

How did the word ascension come to be used to describe the raising of Jesus to heaven when it is derived from a Latin word. Were the manuscripts used to produce the bible not written in Greek.

A debate with Bernardo Kastrup?

Is this perhaps the only time Ascension Sunday has ever been mentioned in a sitcom...? kzread.info/dash/bejne/rGqE08qCnru-pNY.html

12:10 I've never yet understood why people assume that these two anonymous books were written by the same guy. The best answer so far has been that they both claim to be the same author (with the dedication, I suppose) but that's extremely flimsy since it's the same as 1 Timothy claiming to be written by Paul. Why do Christians and atheists alike never cast any doubt on this idea? What cast iron evidence have they all seen on the authorship of Acts which I've missed? Imho the chronology problems are enough to cast doubt on this.

@EnglishMike

Жыл бұрын

Wikipedia explains it well: _Both books are addressed to Theophilus, the author's patron-and perhaps a label for a Christian community as a whole as the name means "Beloved of God", and the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus-almost certainly the work we know as the Gospel of Luke._ _Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. As one scholar writes, "the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author"._ Basically scholars performed the same analysis of language, style, and content they used to determined that several of letters attributed to Paul were written by someone else.

@integrationalpolytheism

Жыл бұрын

@@EnglishMike yes, well I know all of that, but considering the breadth of opinion concerning the disputed epistles of Paul, that's not too firm a foundation imho. We can immediately downgrade any claims in the text itself to be by the same author, since there is clear motivation for the author of Acts to claim to be the one who authored the gospel of Luke in the same way as some of the epistles errantly claim to be Paul, basically to add to or abrogate stuff from the earlier material. It's a subject I'd love to know more about. I spend loads of time listening to podcasts about biblical stuff, a lot of it on quite niche subjects, but this isn't a topic I've heard scholars discussing, they all seem to just take it as read! I had heard that Acts is not attested independently until 172 CE, but I need to check that. Obviously it doesn't mean it wasn't written until then, but that's almost a century after the early date the Christians prefer to attach to gLuke, so it's worth noting, if so. Finally I personally do see theological differences between gLuke and Acts. Perhaps the latter was written much later in the author's life, and he has changed his position on some things, or maybe the received versions have been edited by later scribes and this is causing the discrepancies. My reading of gLuke is very much "peace on earth to all men", while Acts seems far more "pie in the sky when you die" to me. Also, the fact it is supposedly about Paul and yet it doesn't even mention that he wrote any letters is fascinating to me, and I'm not sure how that fits in. Even then, occasionally I'll hear somebody (most recently Dennis R Macdonald I think) pointing out a similarity between gLuke and Acts that would be hard to deny, but I'd love to hear some scholar/s really get into this subject.

No, he was provably in a coma. That is, if he existed at all.

Is Christ's ascension reasonable? In a word? "NO"

Out of pure love I'm gonna break in Matt's house and burn half his clothes. Only kidding. Calm down.

If the Hebrew god Yahweh is all powerful, present everywhere, and cannot make a mistake, why does he need a son? Why does he need to come into form at all if he is already present in every living thing? The story of the Hebrew god Yahweh is nothing but a word puzzle by people who won't confess that they don't know.

No. Next question.

The more I hear the story, the more convinced I am that Jesus and his buddies threw a party where they got drunk af, Judas ended up kissing and making out with Jesus, then Jesus was hungover for 3 days, and when he finally woke up, he did the old "wake and bake" and got high as balls.

@mannysspumps9924

Жыл бұрын

Shame on you man ,remember one thing God is watching and listening to you's . I'm sure he's not happy believe it or not but if this is all real ,he's going to smoke you's!

@EnglishMike

Жыл бұрын

@@mannysspumps9924 Oh please. Go be a passive aggressive concerned troll somewhere else. Also, don't you believe God has a sense of humor?

Elvis Presley is alive and well. He works at the Burger King in my hometown. I know it's really him; he wears a cape.

@LiamWakefield

Жыл бұрын

Heretics, both of you. The King does not need to work, it merely appears that he does due to his luminous, all encompassing presence overwhelming our insufficient and unworthy minds.

@MaxtheFinger

Жыл бұрын

@@MikeJJJenkin Let me answer that if two parts, starting with your ex-girlfriend Pizza Hut claim. 1. There is no mention of a cape, therefore, this is a pre-Las Vegas claim, and pre-Las Vegas claims have been roundly debunked. B. Even though ex-girlfriends have been shown to exist, no one understands what makes them tick. F. Even though Pizza Hut is a place that has been shown to exist, I must categorically reject this part of your claim. Now I will address your Burger King skepticism. 40. The truth and evidence of the existence of Burger King is all around us, in the sky, the trees, the earth, and the very air that we breath. Especially if you live next door to one. I understand but you are angry with the loss of your Burger King, but don't let that lead you into denying the truth. Burger King exists and all it takes to be certain for yourself is to make a pilgrimage to the location nearest you. 40. You can actually meet with my Burger King Elvis in person, any day between 10 and 4 at Burger King. His name tag says Bill, but if you ask him if he is Elvis, he will whip out a guitar from his cape and start singing. Case closed.

@MaxtheFinger

Жыл бұрын

@MikeJJJenkin 🤣 Cheers brother! 🤟

Is the Ascension even what we'd predict would happen, given Christ's mission on Earth? Surely Jesus remaining on Earth to rule a unified church up to the present day would do far more to advance the plan of salvation than leaving the spreading of Christianity to a handful of mere humans?

According to research by Carlisle (1987), heaven is a place on Earth. Therefore it is not reasonable for anyone, Christ or otherwise, to 'ascend into Heaven'. Case closed.

@xmillion1704

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like an appeal to authority. 😁 Works for me!

The answer is no,no,no,no.

Debates*

7:20 the available non-biblical evidence for the bodily ascension of Jesus 7:28 the available evidence for events similar to the bodily ascension of Jesus 7:35 biblical claims

@exceptionallyaverage3075

Жыл бұрын

LOL. They were certainly convincing. 😄

" Is Christ's Ascension reasonable?" If you are gullible, and believe unquestioningly what you are told. Otherwise, NO.

re - 16:00 Are you saying that Ali Barber wasn't really set upon by 40 thieves? That's crazy-talk!! Who ever heard of Ali Barber and the 39 thieves??? Or Ali Barber and the 41 thieves, for that matter!!?? Nb: Obviously, the above is meant to be taken as a joke. My sincere pity to anyone who read it and thought it was a real objection.

I think the author of Acts only interpolated the first two chapters of Luke. I don’t think he wrote the whole thing

"I can't draw a line of lead, because I don't have a pencil". Sums up the video in one phrase. The appropriate response to this phenomena would be: If God is real, why can't he perform miracles to fix all the problems in this world. That's the REAL topic to discuss. What would it mean to fix all the problems of this world?

John 3:13 is in the past tense - it makes me wonder how many times we are expected to believe Jesus has ascended to heaven. Perhaps he's a bid of a snowbird? some seasons in heaven, and some in Israel

Wot's... Uh the deal, with Luke and Acts?

1 Corinthians 1: 18-13 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world

Matt i’d love to call in sometime to talk about the burden of proof, but i want to make sure i have all my points well thought out before i do, i don’t want to shift the burden of proof, but say a person says “i believe there is a god” the claim there is that they believe it, which is all a theist can really say, so is there a burden of proof on a belief? or is it just up to the theist to unveil whether or not they have justified reasons to believe it? regardless of if it convinces you or not, and secondly, the heart of the question kind of deals with the origins of life, so shouldn’t that be the debate? the theist says it was god and gives the reasons they believe it to be true, and then the atheist says “i don’t believe that….” but why not; here’s what i do believe and here is the evidence that supports my conclusion regarding the origins of life because there is no proof to take on the burden of, just a requirement to justify (each sides) position on the matter. because if you don’t believe in god, then you likely have a different position on what caused everything, and i don’t see the point of not arguing your own position against a theist. i guess i just see a lot of atheists use that as an escape to not engage in conversation, whenever “theism/atheism” is about somebody’s belief, not a truth claim, so why are we throwing this wrench into the discussion

@sbushido5547

Жыл бұрын

It's not a wrench, it's the truth. No one, atheist or theist, is under any obligation to prove _THAT_ they believe something. If you want to convince someone that your belief is accurate, that's when you take on the burden. More often than not, religious apologists will act as if atheists need to disprove their myriad claims before we are allowed to say we don't believe in their god. That's not true. All a person needs in order to not believe something is...to not believe it. Atheists don't have to account for morality. We don't have to account for cosmology. We don't have to account for the beginning of life. We don't have to explain the supposed life/miracles of Jesus. None of it. Atheists _CAN_ offer reasons why we don't accept the claims of any particular religion if we want, and we do...constantly. But it's not a case of _"if you can't account for all this mythology, then Christianity is true! Checkmate!"_ It just doesn't work that way.

@ryandavis-dw6ky

Жыл бұрын

@@sbushido5547 see i feel like anytime somebody gives me an answer to this it ignores the nuance i’m providing and just re-states the original claim that i’m disputing, without disputing any points i’ve made. ( you addressed a couple to be fair ) i understand that atheism is just the lack of belief in a god, but a theist is expected to put all of their beliefs and justifications on the table for examination and intense dissection and ridicule, while the atheist never has to justify the things that they ascribe to, that they might not have a good justification for outside of appeals to authority or what they heard another atheist say that heard it from another atheist and so on and so on, i think the topic almost inescapably is about how something came from nothing (so to speak) a theist IS inserting a God into that gap, but they also have reasons they do, regardless if they are convincing to you, and instead of hinging yourself on “atheism is just a lack of belief” why not say “i am an atheist which means i don’t believe, but here’s what i do believe and why” like yeah, you have the right to pull the “i just dont believe” card, but why not instead for the sake of the conversation on both sides, also put those beliefs that deal with how everything came to be, on the table open for the same amount of ridicule? i think that’s a much more fruitful way to have this debate, being held to the same fire/standard that the christian is for their beliefs. the issue for theists and atheists alike is they often know what they’ve been told but don’t actually have an understanding of those things enough to have them held up to that level of questioning/interrogating/epistemology-audit.

@chrlpolk

Жыл бұрын

@ryandavis-dw6ky You ARE shifting the burden of proof. And you’re gaslighting about it. No one is under any obligation to explain what they believe and why. But boy, do religious folks love to do just that! And make laws and make declarations about social norms, etc. the moment they get pushback, they do what you just did, “Why don’t you tell me what you believe and why?” Because I’m not the one calling into the show, I’m not the one trying to pass legislation, and I’m not the one with the burden of proof here.

@EnglishMike

Жыл бұрын

In isolation, it doesn't really matter where the burden of proof lies, but as soon as you attach real world consequences to the existence of God, like telling someone they must believe in this God or they will go to Hell for an eternity of pain and torment, then the burden of proof falls squarely on the Christian. The origins of life isn't the issue here. There are no real world consequences outside of the scientific community involved in related research. The real world consequences in this case are things like scaring someone into believing they'll go to Hell when they die if they don't convert, the passing of regressive laws against the LGBTQ+ community based on religious convictions, etc. That's when the burden of proof should be required of Christians, and some.

@ryandavis-dw6ky

Жыл бұрын

@@EnglishMike eh, the topic is so much more broad than a christian saying you’re going to hell. you’re making the mistake of ascribing details of their worldview that they may or may not ascribe to. just like “atheist” doesnt tell what your worldview is, “theist” only says they believe in god, it doesn’t say they are a christian, who believes you’re going to a literal hell, and gays shouldn’t marry etc… all you know is that they believe in a god and likely see that god as a creator, and i think at the heart of all theists is the “god of the gaps” fallacy, so i think its much more fruitful to fight idea vs idea about what may go in those gaps; rather than just say their belief is preposterous, explain why you lean elsewhere. unless you purely just have no belief on the matter and no opinion whatsoever on what might explain our gaps in knowledge, then actively participate in the debate and dont be afraid to make positive belief claims of your own, especially if a theist is on such shaky ground, show them how facts, evidence, and logic lead you to a better conclusion, even if that conclusion is not proven or concrete.

Commenting instead of liking, so as to leave it at 666 😅