วีดีโอ

Dan is an actual scholar of the bible, not an apologist. Dueling over interpretations of mythology is fun to watch, but taking it seriously...🤔

Why do you have a count down. Please, just trim this in post editing.

define and give examples of what "radical skepticism' is. Thanks

One of the big differences between religion and science as “ways of knowing” is that in science we can almost always specify what observations or experiments would prove our theories wrong. In contrast, the faithful do not (and cannot) specify what observations would disprove their beliefs-or the whole basis of their religion. There are two reasons for this distinction. First, through judicious theological manipulation the faithful carefully insulate those beliefs from disproof, often in a hypocritical way. When evidence is found against them, like the medieval age of the shroud of Turin or observations showing that prayer doesn’t work, the faithful simply say, “No, you can’t test God.” No matter that if the Shroud of Turin did date to around 30 A. D., or if prayer did cure people in double-blind tests, those same believers would trumpet to the skies the proof of their faith. Evidence for religious beliefs is counted; evidence against them is dismissed. Needless to say, science doesn’t-and couldn’t-work that way. Second, because religious belief is irrational, the faithful often won’t let themselves even consider counterevidence. The evidence for evolution is by now overwhelming, but still around 60% of Americans think that humans were created by a god directly instead of having evolved-and a lot of the latter believe that our evolution was guided by a god. Faith has immunized these people against the plain facts. I’ve always thought that the existence of horrible tragedy and evil, particularly that inflicted on innocent people and that produced by natural forces like earthquakes and tsunamis, were prime evidence against the more loving and omnipotent species of god. But there’s a whole branch of theology-theodicy-designed to explain those things away. Let’s put it this way: if the Holocaust didn’t make people abandon their belief in a god, then nothing ever will. Religion is not a way of knowing because it doesn’t have a way of knowing that it is wrong. And without that, you don’t know if you’re right. That’s why science makes progress in understanding the world while religion is still mired in medieval theology.

am so happy for you that nonsense, wishful, irrational thinking and delusion makes perfect sense to you.

Let's not take Tyler at his word, and instead pick apart his private life and "character failures" because he left Christianity. How very Christian.

Your argument would have more force if you used the preserved word from Philippians “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”

Great video. You nailed it. if Psalm 12 is true then the long ending of Mark belongs.

Does this channel dude ever really address anything? lol. Nope. This was my last try giving him a chance. Apologetics is his biz. Just be honest with it - but he isn't.

You would have a point if people weren't teaching the Bible as morally prescriptive for today.

Calvinism creates Atheists and Apostates because the “god” of Calvinism is actually less Sovereign than they claim. A “god” that is too weak to enable free will and too weak to get his way without meticulously determining everything, and who must determine all evil in order to rule it without danger of personal loss to glory, is too non-Sovereign to be called a god with a little g in the first place. My God is Sovereign enough to create free will and still have complete control. Is theirs?

First, I love your material on various topics and plan to watch more of them. I wanted to raise two points with no disagreement. You mention that 1 Timothy 5:18 cites Luke 10:7. I merely want to point out that, while I do think it was Luke, it could allude to Matthew 10:10. Paulogia makes much of John 21:24. I trust you are familiar with the Muratorian Fragment. It says, “The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, ‘Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.’ In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it.” If this material is correct, it gives a simple explanation to the latter words of John 21:24. John begins his epilogue announcing that he, as a disciple who was close to Jesus, wrote down the material, and those around him, including Andrew, sounded a chorus of affirming witnesses. At least that makes the most sense to me. One more thing about literacy. It seems clear to me that Matthew would have had to know Aramaic and Greek at least in order to communicate with his own people and the Romans who, though they generally spoke Latin, also knew Greek as the 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑎 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑎 of the Mediterranean. Regarding John, we learn how to write based on how we speak. If John wrote from Ephesus (as many suppose), is it that unlikely that a young man, like John, might learn to speak and write Greek while living there simply from rubbing shoulders with the Ephesian people? Why must we assume John was incapable of learning? However, that they used secretaries does seem extremely likely and as you point out, Paul used them.

Gotta disagree with you on this one Kurt, and I wrote a six-part series on why the commercial was not advantageous to the Gospel: www.patheos.com/blogs/theologicalapologetics/2024/02/does-he-really-get-us-some-thoughts-on-hegetsus/

Thank you for this.

Wow. I predict that this will go poorly for you. Perhaps I need to start paying more attention to this channel and your garbage apologetics.

I'd be very careful with this if I were you. Remember, God and Pinecreek will be watching.

This feels very personal and very inappropriate. I hope you reconsider because I think this could be very damaging to your ministry, and this is the sort of low brow stuff I wouldn’t expect from you.

Finally. I cannot wait.

The scriptures say that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgement. He doesn’t draw attention to Himself so if He was involved, we might not know it. In Romans Paul said that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, so was the Holy Spirit quietly revealing spiritual truth to the seeker so that he might be convicted of his sins? I believe the Spirit was involved as well as God our Father and our precious Lord, Jesus Christ. 😊

Subscribed

A christian 'apologist' leaves the faith after they study the bible putting aside the 'apologist BS' needed to harmonize their bible. The problem was we/they were apologists so they were constantly twisting the bible to make it fit. Many of us who left still study the bible even more now after leaving and scholars' writings are our main studies now. The BS that they leave because of the reasons you stated are very few and even then there is good reason to leave.

Calvinism is an atheist factory. Tyler Vela, as many of other reformed, can't see God in any other way than a unchanging fate deity prescribing all the good and evil in the world. It's no shock to me that apostasy is on the rise due to Augustinian anthropology being on blast for awhile now. What shouldn't really surprise me, is that I see Mr. Vela still being paraded on these reformed channels as if he's not a blasphemer and slanderer of God. Then again Calvinists' are themselves slanderers and blasphemers of God by way of their systematic, birds of a feather as they used to say. Looking forward to the video, I used to watch Tyler's videos back in the day. May God guide him and us all home.

Ive only watched a couple of your videos but i love your content so far! Keep it up!

Woah

I missed a couple of weeks. I hope to catch you next week!

How can Dan admit to a bi-unity of God concerning the Holy Spirit, yet claim a tri-unity of God is otherwise illogical? This is where every anti Trinitarian trips up.

Matthew is the only one where I can kinda sorta see the skeptics case.

Robinson Mark Wilson Joseph Moore Timothy

Hey can can you cover duet 22:25-29 . Dan has covered it in a video In all honesty, im still confused about it. It feels like a lot of personal interpretation on both sides .

Why are we talking about the thief on the cross who died - still under the Old Covenant - as if his death/faith story has any baring on post-pentecost Christians? 🤦‍♂️

Brain cells die here.

Regardless of whether one is a theist or an atheist, epistemological fallibilism is still a problem. Even if you assume theism, humans disagree, with equal conviction, about all sorts of things. Even if we disregard the evolutionary origins of the human mind and assume that its ultimate source is God, how can we possibly trust that any of our intuitions are correct when human intuitions vary so wildly? How can you, as a theist, trust that anything you think you know about God is correct? How can you be sure that God isn't the one who has chained you to the allegorical cave and prevented you from seeing an even deeper truth? Fallibilism is purely a result of having a limited mind, not of the condition of that mind. I also wonder what you mean when you say "if atheism is true, then everything is false". If you take atheism to mean the positive assertion that no gods exist, then it does not follow that everything is false. Firstly, the statement itself is something of a paradox, no? If atheism is true, then everything is false, therefore atheism is false. So I have to assume you mean something a little less literal than that. From the rest of the video, I think you mean something more like "if atheism is true, then nothing can be known to be true", and again we are at what I said before where that is not tied to whether or not gods exist.

And the gold medal for best *Mental gymnastics* goes to the both of you. Atheism is a conclusion, not a belief. All *_RELIGIONS_* are *_FAIRYTALES_* and *_INVISIBLE DEITIES_* with *_MAGICAL POWERS_* who *_WATCH OVER YOU_* don't exist. Plus the so called *_“HOLY”_* books are simply the writings of primitive nomads who knew nothing of *Evidence Based Knowledge*

as for the conclusion of the video, atheists aren't a cult, a single monolith or a specific faction, so trying to hold some atheists to the writings of other atheists is a little weird. christianity is itself lord knows how many different factions, at least 10 main ones? coptic christians aren't holding orthodox christians to the standards of amish people, like what. edit: thanks for presenting epistemological nihilism though, that's new to me :)

No one here is going to be resurrected and live to infinity

the definition of atheism is in answer to a proposition. you propose that there is this god with the features you ascribe. i ask you to provide evidence. if i don't accept your evidence, i don't accept your proposition. so i am atheistic toward your god. atheism cannot be true or untrue, as it is a statement about belief.

Thank you for always producing exceptional content. God bless you

pure stupidity think people don"t blindly follow

I need help understanding this video. Do you not like philosophical conjecture? Is the point that religion makes you feel better about yourself and atheism makes you feel less important? People have been making variations of Descartes' dream argument since the beginning of spoken language; I'm not sure what it has to do with atheism. I thought atheism was living your life without the assumption that the supernatural exists? If you ask me how life, the universe or morality came to be, I can say, 'I don't know'. Most of the authors you quoted would say the same thing. Not knowing is not a worldview view. It's just intellectually honest.

So would you murder if you thought there wasn't a god? Why are most murderers in prison religious?

“If atheism is true, everything is false.” You know when someone says something so profoundly stupid it just stops you in your tracks.

we ought to be careful not to equate correlation with causation. after all, reformed theology became very very big in the early 2000s and 2010s with the YRR movement. therefore, if a good chunk of young christians were calvinists, then a good chunk of young apostates will be calvinists. this has nothing to do with theological problems with calvinism itself, but merely that calvinism was generally the most common form of theological thought among young evangelicals. if calvinism was the most common soteriology for young evangelicals during the 2000s-2010s, then we shouldn't be surprised that many people leaving the faith during that time frame came from a calvinistic context. it was simply a very popular and common context.

Dan is a dichotomy, he loudly claims to follow only the data, whilst simultaneously adhering to the tenets of the old school of German biblical scholarship, which has an agenda of dissecting and attempting to rip the literary meaning of the Pentateuch to shreds.

There’s nothing odd about having your PhD in biblical studies. Speaking Greek, Aramaic and Latin. When you reach that lofty status, will be happy to listen to you. 1:02

Thanks for the all the content! Idk if it’s just me, but I almost skipped this video because the background on the thumbnail is the same as many others you posted. I thought it was an old video. Best!

OBVIOUS: easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident. It's OBVIOUS this guy loves his own voice. Like Sam Harris would say there's no there, there, or in this case there is no hair there. Is the riddle to use Hebrews 11 for OBVIOUS?

The protestants problem is the rejection of the saturday sabbath and aollowing clearly demonic pagan celebrations putting god in it ie holidays the pagans did.

I always felt Hank was always soft in the catholics. How you can afollow a man called the Pope and confessions and praying to Mary. Though not as messed up as Rome its still not protestant.Hanks taking over the ministry was always disputed. Hank how he in 1992 did not belong to financial accountabilty organizations and a bunch of people were fired.

"Further, even though the Greeks above the rest-and Chrysostom especially among them-extol the ability of the human will, yet all the ancients, save Augustine, so differ, waver, or speak confusedly on this subject, that almost nothing certain can be derived from their writings." - John Calvin After one reads the early Church Fathers, it's pretty easy to understand why Calvin wrote this in the Institutes.

Do Vincent & Faustus ever comment on the fate of unbaptized infants and/or inherited adamic guilt?