Apologetics like this are why religion is dying. You can't make such obvious mistakes about simple definitions, like agnosticism and atheism, without people doing 5 minutes of research and disproving you. This will help you: Gnostic theist: I believe God exists, and I also know God exists. Agnostic theist: I believe God exists, but don't claim to know God exists. Agnostic atheist: I don't believe God exists, but don't claim to know God doesn't exist. (most atheists, like me, are here for many definitions of God) Gnostic atheist: I don't believe God exists, and also claim to know God doesn't exist. Just for your reference, theists. You won't look so silly right off the bat if you at least understand the terms you're trying to use. Also that's not an ad hominem fallacy, he straight up lies about definitions and literally makes himself look like he has no idea what he's talking about.
Most of you don't even know who are either. I understand where you are coming from but that's a lot of bureaucracy to direct yourself at the same basis at the end of the day: doubt!
@Danny Pipes What's so pompous about two very different definitions of atheism, when there are countless different sects of Christianity? Are they all just looking to "rebrand?" Despite my beliefs, I still respect all denominations' beliefs, and don't arrogantly dismiss them for not wanting to be misrepresented. Many atheists felt like their ideology was misreprented by this video, meaning the entire video was straw-manning. But by all means, keep smoking your tobacco so you can rush to meet your maker.
You're only revealing you didn't bother paying attention to context if you think he strawmanned agnosticism or atheists. Watch it again, while noticing he was speaking about Epistemology when he said agnostics claim to not be able to know anything with certainty.
@17:50 a laundry list of claims, with not citations. (the brain thing excluded) Where is the evidence? Which source, besides the bible, did you get any of this evidence? hmm?
The Christian apologetic uses the Bible as our basis of truth. If you don’t agree with it then reject it and move along. If you had something that you knew to be the truth why would you try using something else to prove it to be true?
Easiest thing in the world to refute atheism. Just show actual evidence that god exists. Sadly, no theist has ever done this, so I'm still an atheist. You CLAIM you have evidence. But you don't, you just say you do. 'drops a pen' I have just demonstrated the phenomenon we call gravity. Show me evidence akin to that for god, and I will believe. Until then, don't waste my time.
Then that god isn't worth believing in much less worshipping. I shouldn't have to seek out someone who wants me to beleive they exist in the first place. They should just show they exist 'drops a pen' like I can show gravity exists A person or being who does that is just a dick, and even if you do believe in him/her/it I have no idea why you would worship such a bizzarely silly being.
Thomas Dwyer Not an ad hominem. Perhaps God hid Himself so that self-entitled people like you can't reach out to Him. Only for people who seek the truth will He reveal himself to.
@zzpfft hm... not sure how to make it clearer... I think the man in the video (con man, charlatan, swindler, bullshit artist) understands his audience (the people listening intently to him) well enough to be confident they will find what he is saying (selling) is actually logical and valid (instead of complete and utter crap) and not wonder what the hell he has been smoking (pot, grass, ganja, weed) Hopefully this cleared up any confusion.
@zzpfft No offense taken. If you're not interested in my opinion I suggest not reading them... and certainly not writing to me asking for more of them. And the 5 black belts mean what...?
@zzpfft Then I would suggest you don't know much about martial arts. He is not "teaching Love ,Joy,and Peace to total strangers," he is making money by selling a product. And his income is based on his customers not looking too hard.
7:45 Why does Jeff give an inaccurate description of agnosticism? Agnosticism is not the claim "We cannot know anything." Especially when referring to the god context that he's using, the agnostic position is "I do not know if there's a god." The agnostic may also claim that "We cannot know whether there's a god or not." Jeff's "refutation" to this claim is simply saying, "Do you know that?" and claiming that the agnostic's claim is self-refuting. Sorry, this is a poor start.
I'm a christian pilot and I thank God for giving us the ability to produce engineer aerodynamic aircrafts while also thanking him for our dense air that allows for aircrafts to fly. :)
I laughed out loud (even snorted a little) watching this, because of how contradicting, ignorant and patronizing it was. He’s a great speaker, but wow, the actual stuff he says (if you actually listen to his words/claims/arguments) are abysmal. He gets definitions all screwed up. He makes up stories, he gives bad examples, and it’s as if he doesn’t know what he is saying, he’s just talking to be heard. And I am guessing the folks who listen and nod their heads are either doing that because they either like the sound of his voice or they are just as ignorant. Or both. But if this is an example of good Christian apologetics, then that is very sad for Christianity. Someone actually interested and wanting to go over your arguments can easily watch your video more than once and break down your definitions/claims/arguments, and see very clearly how they fail,. And wow do they fail miserably!! And I keep saying wow, because of how great someone can speak, but say something so profoundly ignorant and devoid of any intellectual value.
Funny, because you just did the same thing you accused Jeff Durbin of doing. You wrote a whole paragraph saying how he failed miserably while not actually saying how he failed. Pretty sure we call that Hypocrisy!
@@TexterEX He put out an hour and 20 minutes making bad claims and arguments. I gave a short 2 paragraph opinion, which was critical of the video. Do you want me to break down his video and tell you what he got wrong? I will do that if you really care. If you just want to call me a hypocrite, that's up to you. But that means that people with an opinion can't disagree with this guy, or you for that matter, unless they fully explain their position or else you'll call them a hypocrite. I think that's ridiculous. I think you need to have a better handle on what being a hypocrite means. Well, do you want me to fully explain my position? Are you even interested in the conversation?
@@TexterEX Ok, I'll hit a few highlights right from the beginning (I mean, it is nearly an hour and 20 minutes, so that's a lot of crap over a long period of time). [2:22] he mentions Sye Ten Bruggencate, who is a fraud and complete idiot when it comes to apologetics. And honestly, Jeff here has no credibility at this point with me. Perhaps you still, but believe me, if he’s taking a page from Sye’s book, he’s also a fraud. And then he talks about how Christian Apologetics is not about memorizing a script. Well, that’s EXACTLY what Sye does, and I’m pretty sure most Christian Apologists actually do. I bring this up because it is important later. [6:12] He’s saying that classical atheism says, “there is no god”. Well, the big reason why is that religion has always painted atheism as evil, wicked, of the devil, and as people who declare there is no god. But he’s setting up a straw man argument, because you’ll actually find very few atheists who say, “there is no god”. They say, “I don’t believe in god”, because that is truly what atheism is. He already tries to go back to a bad definition of atheism because it feeds his narrative, but it’s a straw man argument. Also, he continues about agnosticism, but it’s not like agnostics are agnostic about everything as he stated. He totally misrepresents agnosticism, which gets a laugh from the crowd. Being an agnostic when it comes to god means that we don’t know a god exists. And anyone who claims they do know better bring compelling evidence, or they should not convince anyone except the most naïve and gullible people. You can be an agnostic atheist, which means that you don’t know a god exists, and therefore you don’t believe a god exists. That is a very reasonable position, and it doesn’t need justification. I don’t know is a very honest position, and instead of making stuff up (like a god), more people need to go with that than lie to themselves. [7:45] Jeff says it is not a word game, but then plays the Sye Ten Bruggencate classic word game. Wow!! Not even 10 minutes in and you can’t even trust the guy to make good arguments. [8:15] Jeff starts talking about atheism and agnosticism being the same, and starts talking about their world view being tied to Darwin, evolution, and all kinds of stuff under a “world view”. This is again a straw-man argument. He already misrepresented the terms, now he’s trying to lump everything together under a conflicting world-view to Christianity. Big huge obvious straw man, as atheism is not a world view. Agnosticism is not a world view. People have world views. Religions can define their own world views. But having a lack of knowledge of a god, or not believing in a god, is not a world view. And to associate anything with agnosticism or atheism like that is completely wrong. Again, a straw man, because he’s creating an argument that atheists and agnostics aren’t making so he can easily knock them down. [8:42] Jeff mentions origins. Why are origins even brought up? Who said atheists (or agnostics) have a view or idea of origins? Another straw man argument. He assumes all atheists (or agnostics) believe in the same things, and that is not the case. And even if it was, it would be a non-sequitur anyway, as origins are not defined or even implied by atheism (or agnosticism), so why even make that argument? Well, I think we know why he does. He’s creating a divide between Christianity and what he views as non-Christianity, and in the process painting atheists (and agnostics) as being in the wrong. Well, he fails at that. And in the process, shows that instead of making good arguments for his god and Christianity, he just wants to muddy the water and continue his straw man argument. [12:37] Jeff says how do you know? God says so! That’s his words, not mine. And this is just after he rejected the idea of faith being a way to truth (which I agree with). Well, my question would be, “how do you know God said it?” And then he declares that Christianity is different from all other “revelational epistemologies” because God somehow speaks through everything we do and say. And listen to his double-speak - he says that other religions have revelational epistemologies, but they only speak to one person, while his triune god speaks through everything. His justification? Let’s go to the Christian holy book, where it says stuff to back him up. Wow. And don’t you think for a moment that Muslims can make the same claim? He says no, but a couple of billion Muslims will probably disagree, as their book makes similar claims as well, justified by their book. So, good for him. He makes the same argument other religions do, and brings no evidence to the table. Typical religious apologist right there. Ok, so I’m less than 20 minutes in, and I’ve already pointed out a bunch of issues. I’ve got other stuff to do, so I’m going to stop for now. If this isn’t enough to satisfy you, then I you're probably not going to be satisfied if I keep going. I don’t plan to change your mind anyway. I’m sure you’ll say that what I wrote is wrong or that I took things out of context or that I’m just a stupid atheist and just don’t get it. Or whatever, it doesn't matter. Believe what you want, I stand on my original statements. If you want to refute me, please go ahead. But let me warn you - if you make claims that you can't support by good evidence, then who cares?! Not me, that's for sure. Jeff is a con man, and if you don’t want to see that, then that’s on you. I’m certainly not buying his rubbish!
@@smequals 1:I haven't heard of Sye Ten Bruggencate, but you didn't really give me a good reason to believe why he's fraud, so I would have to go off your opinion on that. 2: If you ask any atheists if God exists they would say he does not, I don't know what type of atheists you've seen. 3:Again, you've said he is playing word games but failed to give me any good reason to believe he is, so again, I would have to just take your opinion. 4: You said that classical atheists wouldn't say God does not exist they just don't believe in him(sounds like a different branch of agnostic to me), but here you are saying Jeff is wrong for tying atheism and agnosticism together. Make up your mind. 5:You say atheism has no view of origins, ever heard of evolution? 6:A Muslim trying to say "God says so" would just be really agreeing with Christians because the Quran itself says to go to gospel first for instructions. (Also it sounds like you're playing words games when you say "atheists don't say there is no God they say they don't believe in one" again, you're being a hypocrite by claiming Jeff/Sye is playing games while you're playing word games.
You said that difference between Christianity and other revelational epistemology like Mormonism 14:10 is that Mormon revelations were private. Uhm, wasn't the revelation to Moses, who supposedly wrote the entire first 5 books of the Bible, done in _private_ ...? Wasn't the 10 commandments given to him in private? Wasn't every revelation written by the prophets of the OT given in private? Wasn't the revelation of the book of (drum roll) Revelation, supposedly given to John completely in private while he was secluded on the island of Patmos? Your argument completely invalidates the entire Bible. Well done.
He's obviously referring to the foundational texts of Christianity: the 4 gospels, from which we can deduce the near fullness of the Christian faith. Christ's ministry was public and was transcribed by eyewitnesses. That's unique amongst religions, and should give us more epistemological certainty to the truth of our faith than competing faiths. Admittedly, it does not follow from this that Christianity is true. This is just one more piece of evidence pointing towards the truth of Christianity.
@@scootermcgavin7986 that is utterly false. Not only is it not "obvious" that he is referring to only the 4 Gospels, he in fact explicitly says that he is not. He speaks of the revelation of the entire Bible. That revelation is just as private as any other religion. It is a completely dishonest framing to claim otherwise. He even specifically goes into OT revelational texts like Proverbs to make his point. 15:50 The vast majority of the Bible is private revelation, just like every other Revelation epistemology. The Gospels, on the other hand, are not revelation at all. They are a narrative story. Period.
@Daniel Gigante "Didn't watch the whole video (I guess I lose)." Yeah it's kind of silly to argue with me about my position on what is stated in the video without watching the video. "While that's true, the vast majority of the deposit of the faith" No one was talking about the "deposit of the faith". What does that term even mean? If it means the public life of Jesus described in the Gospels... well then your statement is a completely useless tautology. "To say they're not revelation is simply going off the rails." If you want to call all narratives in holy texts public revelation, I am fine with that. This means that the Islamic holy texts which tell of Mohammad ripping the moon in twain, are public revelation. This means that the tales of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon from golden tablets of an unknown Egyptian dialect by looking into a hat, are public revelation. This means the story of Xenu, leader of the Galactic Confederacy, bringing billions of humanoids to Earth, is an extremely public revelation.
+Apologia Studios and specifically +Jeff Durbin I must say that find it extremely difficult to take Pastor Jeff seriously in this sermon/lecture. This is primarily due to Jeff's constant misrepresentation of claims made by Atheists, Mathematicians, Scientists, etc. and it become even more difficult to do so when we consider the absolutist and dogmatic claims (that btw, Jeff failed to in anyway demonstrate are probable let alone are established absolute "Fact/Truth") sprinkled throughout his preachings. In short this speech is indicative off nothing more than the oh so familiar echo chambers that some christians feel are effective. Let me assure you my friend/s preachers like Jeff have no effect (outside perhaps confirming how little religion actually has to offer) on individuals who actually care about finding truth not "Truth. Finally, As a side note to Jeff personally, Jeff based on your propertied encounters with people holding differing view points from your own all I can say is it would seem to the uninformed viewer that you have yet to encounter someone who has given these issues much thought &/or effort. However, after searching the internet I came to discover numerous discussions/debates where you are provided with much more substantive responses to your "questions", so I find it interesting (and even more telling) that you would choose to highlight the "answers" you have in this talk. With that said if you would ever like to discuss any of these topics with someone who is able and most willing to provide better answers your questions and perhaps even some refutations to your claims I would be more than will to offer my services. Thanks for your time, Ned (~P)
32:30 Someone explain this to me, please. I've been trying to understand this for days and I can not. How can one be left in doubt if 2 + 2 are really 4?
The object isn't to defeat atheism within your own mind. You will always be the winner of that debate. It is to refute atheism in the mind of the atheist. That is not a simple task.
@chasm or sar they don't want to believe even if you give evidence they will not believe unless God intervenes in their life they will not believe our aim is to tell them the gospel it is up to God whether they believe it or not. people's do not believe in God for various reason but it really just rebellion they don't want someone telling them what to do also it would mean they are accountable to God for how they live their life. everything(but God) has a beginning nothing+nothing=nothing.no God no universe no earth no humans no plants no animals no space no light no planets nothing.
@@truthseekers1620 Of course that's true, but God is also the source of reason. It's okay to use rational arguments as well. It would be denying a part of God's divine essence to think otherwise.
@@chasmofsar2691Indeed - I realize this is old, but I'd say that a lie has limitless appeal. It can be literally anything you want it to be, and it will tell you anything you want to hear. Now of course, lies fail - it's only a matter of where and when. Regarding these truths, the decieved holds hands symbiotically with the deception. To separate from the lie is to die and be born again; an athiest will fight tooth and nail, as if their life depends on it, precisely because it does. Faith changes everything, and challenges every lie that's ever worked together to build a non-believer. Redefinition through faith builds people up stronger than they ever could have been, but a godless person just sees their tiny worldly tower getting knocked down.
So I'm about 10 minutes in and it's seeming pretty off. I call myself an agnostic atheist, but under his definitions I'm neither an agnostic nor and atheist. I'm not absolutely certain whether any gods exist, but based on current evidence I don't believe any of the gods that have been described to me actually exist. I don't claim no gods exist. I don't claim we can't know anything, because there are some things I can be absolutely certain of, like the content of my thoughts, opinions, and preferences. I also think a god of classical theism would find it trivially easy to provide evidence for its existence, of the same quality and quantity for everything else I believe in. This is how pretty much every atheist I know or have heard of thinks, too, and so he is constructing arguments against a straw man. And for all that he says don't just follow a script, the "do you know you don't know anything" script is something I've heard several times before, and it always falls flat. There is a reason why we don't have apologists constantly creating philosophical arguments to reassure us of the existence of our pets, the country Australia, the pyramids of Giza, or the element Lithium. These things all have good evidence and their existence is therefore clear. No god meets the same evidentiary criteria; instead they all seem to fall into the same evidentiary category as mythological creatures, magic, and UFOs. And so I don't currently believe such claims.
I think it's important to realize that the target audience for this video is not for someone with your views. It's aimed at Christians who want to understand how to present their beliefs to others. I would say the way God arranges His evidence is it begins as, at best, a 50/50. However, once a person makes the decision to follow Him, this changes until the moment... (have you heard this before? That God "reveals Himself" to someone) and then it is no longer 50/50 and can even be as high as 100%/0%. The main thing is to realize (but NOT from this video) that there is enough evidence to warrant a thorough examination of what is out there. People whose profession is to examine tough questions, the best minds out there that are Nobel Laureates, are a massive majority of believers in God, with at least 68 or so % Christians and another 13% Jewish...and not casual believers but those willingly being quoted in their belief. If these sorts of minds are being convinced, then the rest of us need to examine the issue VERY closely. It all depends upon if a person wants to spend eternity with God or not. God will not force anyone to join Him in the "next life."
@@billyholly Well, the target audience is people who want to challenge my view, and I explained why this sort of challenge won't work. In particular, these arguments and "evidence" skirt around my epistemology, always staying in the realm of likely imaginary things. I understand that the easiest people to convert are desperate people looking for some emotional reassurance, who feel a need for social support. Church communities can definitely offer these things but this in fact has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of their religious claims. Any group of people can do the same, regardless of their particular beliefs. Nor am I impressed by your appeal to Nobel laureates. You are appealing to experts in a particular field, to justify their beliefs about a different field outside of their expertise; this is a fallacious appeal to authority. Nobel laureates also tend to be elderly, and so are culturally much more likely to be religious. In fact the vast majority of scientists and philosophers are atheists, but again this has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of unscientific, unfalsifiable beliefs. Would I want to marry a woman (for a marriage lasting decades) based on a book by anonymous authors, stating third-hand claims about her appearance, personality traits, or the very fact of her existence? Absolutely not. If these writing claimed she had magic powers, I would be even more dubious. How could I possibly want to spend an *eternity* with someone, then, based on the same poor evidence? To determine if I like someone, or for them to coerce me into something through the force of their personality, at a minimum they first have to evidently exist. Right? Plenty of people in the bible are depicted as speaking with god, and then later reject him. He preserved their free will and yet can't talk to me without coercion, or does he probably not exist and these are stories, and there is no god for me to meet?
@@weirdwilliam8500 These are all thoughts worth examining. What if you select the most important. I would suggest those dealing with Jesus since without a resurrected Jesus, there is no reason for Christianity. What do you think? Should we take a look? One thought about the Nobel Laureates, my point there, ancient old or not, they are at their prime enough to win an award and they know how to examine evidence. I am not appealing to their authority. We take Stephen Hawking seriously, Bill Nye the Science Guy and several other well-known atheists and they are also outside their fields in their remarks. Never mind on that. What do you think of my Jesus question? Unlike many other commenters, you actually seem to be seeking real answers and are not relying on repeating memes.
@@billyholly Hey Billy. Thanks for your reply. I agree this has been a good conversation, especially for a TH-cam comment section. :) If we look at the evidence for Jesus, it doesn't rise above the common, established pattern of legendary development, urban legends, or exaggerating the truth to promote a religion. These are the sorts of human patterns we see in every other religion, tall tale, etc. The case for Christianity is especially weak since all of the gospels are anonymous and only Paul actually reports seeing a risen Jesus, although he never knew Jesus in life and he only reports seeing a light and hearing a voice. Many known mundane phenomena could explain his single experience. Looking at the chronology of the four gospels, as accepted by the consensus of biblical scholars, we can see that each subsequent gospel includes more supernatural or miraculous details than the one before it. If we then look at the chronology of the other roughly 40 gospels that were not canonized in the bible, we see a continuing pattern of legendary development, with Jesus' head reaching into the clouds, a talking cross, disciples paralyzing people with a touch, and many more extreme claims. The original gospel of Mark had very little supernatural elements, and the modern ending where the women spread the news was also absent in its earliest manuscripts. Just people and an empty tomb. If we plot this rate of increase in supernatural claims on a timeline by each gospel, and extrapolate the line backwards through decades of oral tradition and proselytizing to the time of Jesus' life, we arrive at zero miracles on the line. We arrive at the sort of mundane origin typical of every religion, which you as a Christian presumably believe is the case for every other religion. There are no extra-biblical accounts of anything related to Jesus' supposed life, death or resurrection. There are extra-biblical accounts from decades later, where the accounts simply describe what Christians at that time believed. That early Christians were fervent in their beliefs is neither remarkable nor indicative of the truth or falsehood of their beliefs. We have seen modern preachers as well as the writings of early Church fathers express that lying for the purpose of spreading their faith is acceptable. We have seen how a single claim from one person can spread and become exaggerated or embellished until it becomes a religion. Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard are the most recent examples. We have countless examples of this myth progression, from religions, to the myth of the stolen 2020 election, to Elvis sightings, to tales of Paul Bunyan, King Arthur, Baba Yaga and many more. We have countless examples of people lying, exaggerating, or being mistaken. We have countless examples of bereavement delusions, which is a common phenomenon where people have delusions in which they see, hear, or feel people who have recently died who they had a strong emotional attachment to. We have zero demonstrable or reliable examples of anyone actually rising from the dead. For this reason, I place Christianity in the broadly known, mundane category of mythology, because that is much more likely than an entirely new and undemonstrated ontology, namely a supernatural suspension of physical laws. Thanks for reading, if you read this far!
@@weirdwilliam8500 Hehe! Don't worry about the length. I actually DID make it through to the end. However, it's better you look at the issue one step at a time or one may "lose the forest for the trees," with me mashing up that common saying. Can we take it one point at a time? Jesus? The Gospels aren't nor have ever been embellished. They have never been a game of "telephone." I can refer you to specific scholars on this, if you'd like. There are TONS of clips like: th-cam.com/video/-F_xRyi1yAs/w-d-xo.html Memes repeat the telephone idea and others to discredit the accounts but they are simply not true. However, keep in mind, the Bible never saved anyone. We DO have the ridiculous Gnostic Gospels from a couple hundred years later that should totally be rejected, perhaps a distraction strategy, pushed upon us by the "enemy." In an oral tradition society with only a 10% literacy rate and paper costing a fortune, very few written records remain but more words had been written about Jesus than the reigning emperor of the time, like four times as many. The preaching began in the city where Jesus was crucified, a poor choice if they were speaking lies as many witnesses lived right there and could have disagreed with what was being taught of Jesus...and not ONE contradiction from that time came out. As for the hustlers like Smith, who worked as a conman in his younger days, expect the enemy to use such types to distract from the truth.
I am constantly surprised on how apologists are unable to understand the terms agnosticism and atheism. First of all, agnostic atheism is not a mutually exclusive position. I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that no gods exist. That makes ma agnostic. I also happen to not believe a god exists. That makes me an atheist. As long as you understand that one position is related to knowledge, and the other is related to belief, you got it. Pretty simple actually.
Before I became a born again Christian this is how I described myself, you’re right. I didn’t believe, but I also understood that I could not know. Therefore I called myself an agnostic atheist. I would say that this Jeff guy is a little inaccurate with his descriptions of words and religion. He could steelman Atheism/Agnosticism’s position to refute it which would strengthen his point. Instead he strawmanned you guys. Keep searching for the truth my friend. God will reveal himself to you when you are ready. Trust me, I would read this a year ago and call myself crazy. But Christ is truth. 20 year Agnostic Atheist here. I literally wore a Moses costume for “Fictional Character Day” at school. Trust me I was a heathen 😂
@@AaronBornAgain I was a theist for decades. And despite being sincerely searching for god, said god never was revealed to me. I am still opened to being convinced, but I am also not holding my breath. Well, Moses was actually a fictional character. The vast, VAST majority of scholars, historians, Near East experts, etc are convinced about this.
How do you know? "God says" How do you know god says? "The bible says god says" Why would you trust the bible to be genuine revelation? "I take it on faith." Or "It works for me" or "I was raised within the church"... Point is, you don't have "God says so" as your epistemological ground floor.
I mean you'd have to refute confirmed prochecy, scientific discorvery, historical facts, testimonies, epistemology and ultimately objective truth given from God's Word... Scripture itself sets an unachievable standard of 100% accuracy in all truth and has met it everytime.. any human works without the Holy Spirit simply cannot produce a truthful worldview. I'd say a spiritual person without God can be taken more seriously debating truth than an atheist.. an atheist literally has no basis for even existing.. naturalism is verifiably false.
@@shinywarm6906 again. Your opinion really doesn't matter in a godless, judgement free worldview where nothing or no one ordains or sees anything. It's all just opinion and everything is subjective and relative. Don't attack my character, attack my argument. But you can't really do that so good luck. You have nothing to stand on.
@@gregferguson9647 "nothing or no-one ordains or sees anything". I guess that might seem true to you, provided you've no self-awareness or conscience, and have never heard of legislatures, state or civil authorities, courts of law, police, prisons, social media posts, or other people. All of these entities, individuals or agents could chose to take notice of my opinions and they could "matter" to all of them. You might define all this as "subjective" but that does not mean it "doesn't matter" (do you think the Nazis' "subjective opinions" didn't matter to the Jews or the Romany Gypsies? You might think without your god "it's all relative", but that doesn't stop it having an effect, or anyone judging or acting on that judgement
@@shinywarm6906 if we all turn to worm food at the end of the day your worldview, then there is no justice for rapists, murderers, slave owners, etc. The lives we live truly mean nothing. And I know you don't believe that.
I made it 4 minutes. That was when he said to think with the mind of Christ to defend Christ with apologetics... I can't take that position seriously, I'm sorry. To have your conclusion in your premises is circular reasoning, I don't know what else to say
I think it's good that you gave it a shot. However, by the title, I think you can guess that the target audience for this clip is not atheists or agnostics. I think it's aimed at Christians and how they might try to organize their thoughts when discussing God with non-believers. I can try to wade through some questions with you. I'm certainly no expert but I am pretty good at searching various sources for answers.
@@billyholly oh boy this was a while ago haha, I don't even remember what the video talked about anymore. But yeah something with that title can't possibly be geared towards the non-believer, unless it is written ironically. Still though, once in a while I like to hear what the other side of the table is talking about, you know?
You wouldn't ask that question if you believed the Bible to be true. Since you do not believe it to be true, you can't make sense of nothing, including the question you just made.
You can ask any question you want if you believe the Bible to be true. You can always question the justification of already held beliefs.That YOU wouldn't ask such a question doesn't entail that no one would ask such a question.
Putting it plainly, your question clearly shows that you do not know the Bible, thus my response. Besides, your question also presupposes much many things, that without God, one cannot account for, such as logic and truth.
No, being agnostic does not mean "we can't know anything" it means we don't know if there is or is no higher being or god, because it is impossible to refute or prove.
It's not impossible to prove. Consider this: All of us human beings, aside from a few exceptions here and there, have the same basic/main body parts [head, chest, arms, hands, legs, feet] and move and function the same way. Genesis 1:26-27 "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Year after year, when babies are born, they pretty much always look, move, and function the same. Same with every other living, breathing life form on the planet. If that's not proof that God, or a high being, is real, I don't know what is. Because if you take intelligent design out of the picture entirely, there's no guarantee that nature would've come to exist and work like it does.
I am just speechless as to how ridiculous this is, I love a good religious debate but this guy is beyond rational thinking. He is slinging woo woo all over the place.....
+ Wicked_Robb Yeah... and people like him from each and every god-espousing religion/belief-system/way-of-life have lots and lots of unwilling-to-be-unbrainwashed followers who love to lap up all the crap.
It baffles me how willing some people can be to tie themselves up into such logic pretzels that belief without good reason makes sense to them. This is my biggest issue with religion - otherwise sensible people believing in nonsense and feeling justified in doing so.
Dude. There are 100+ logically valid & sound arguments for God recognized by mainstream academia. Type in *100 arguments for God* to see. The only way anyone could claim there aren't any good reasons to believe in God are: 1. Complete ignorance 2. Scientism (the self-refuting philosophy that truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified, which cannot be scientifically verified ITSELF)
@howie b personally belief in God has nothing to do with wishful thinking no God no universe no humans man made religion God made man he has nothing to do with religion
Please do tell me what you consider to me evidence ? I'm curious as to what your understanding of the concept of what god is and what would be evidence of that same god
I think that the point is that, the fact that you had the ability to type a comment on a video is evidence enough. The Bible says that mans wisdom is foolishness to God. If nothing matters than why do anything at all? Why do you exist? If there is no truth why even comment in the first place, if God doesn’t exist why try to defend any world veiw at all. The point is you prove that God exists for us.
@@a6m3reisen8 evidence is that which can be tested in the lab and demonstrated to be true. That is the only kind of evidence that matters when discussing existence
@@SwainsSaved nope I'm sorry but nobody is proving the existence of God and nobody is proving the existence of God the way you're talking about… What you're doing is engaging a copout. Why do we exist? Your question assumes a reason but you haven't demonstrated that the needs to be one. I exist because my parents had sex at the right time. That's literally the only answer that actually matters in his demonstrable. Who said there is no truth? And what you mean by truth? There are a lot of things that we can demonstrate our true… None of them require a God. If God does exist why would I need a guide to exist in order to defend the worldview. So many of your questions assume the necessity of God when you have not demonstrated that necessity nor demonstrated they got even exists. Meanwhile it's much more logical that God is the invention of humans that were intelligent enough to ask questions about the world around them, but to England to answer those questions because of their lack of knowledge. Your God is nothing more than a God of the gaps in those gaps are getting smaller every day
@@keithziegler8881 well I respect your response, but I disagree. I believe that God is love, and I also believe that love cannot be a result of complicated organic material forming out of nothing all on its own. Love is indeed complicated, but out of 6,000 years of recorded history, the nations that didn’t fall and become swallowed up by the earth were the ones which had a respect and reverence for right and wrong. I know that the attributes of God are perfect love perfect justice and perfect righteousness. All things work together for the good of those who love him. And with all do respect you cannot prove to me that God doesn’t exist, my God keeps promises and never changes, he is more faithful than any man. If your going to prove the Bible wrong you have to read it first
As soon as you hear him define "Classical Atheist" you should realize that he isn't defining Atheist. If he was defining Atheist and not straw manning Atheist then why would he use the qualifier "classical"? What does his definition of "Classical Atheist" have to do with the definition of Atheist? If I redefine Atheist to mean Apple and agnostic to mean Green. Does that mean agnostic Atheist belief they are Green Apples? If my redefinition doesn't change what Atheist belief then why would you think his definitions accurately represents what Atheist belief? Why can't you address what Agnostic Atheist actually belief? I don't know if a God or Gods exist and I lack a belief in a God or Gods. By his definition I can not be Agnostic or an Atheist. What am I?
That's his point. The dictionary definition of atheism changed from the classical(original) definition of "there is no god" to the contemporary "lack of belief in God(s)." He didn't change the definition, the dictionary purveyors did.
@@DieElect I feel like there is context in the video being over looked. I'm going to guess he uses his definition to define people into a position they don't hold and that is made apparent in his usage of the qualifier.... yea he just did that with agnostic and I'm not watching the rest of this again. Do you think I think he changed they definition?? That's an absurd assumption.
@@DieElect the word atheist means "a"-"no" theist-"belief in god/gods" Put it all together and you get "no belief in god/gods" Not "belief that there is no god/gods" Atheism by definition is the lack of this belief. Just like a square is a rectangle, but not necessarily the other way around, an atheist can hold a positive belief that no gods exist, but that doesn't mean all have to.
After listening / watching sermons and on the street videos from Jeff for a little over a year now I think I'm finally willing and ready to stop eating my neighbors.
Cannibal Tribe open up Hannibal's Bar and Grill. Specials: Fridays during Lent: Fishermen & Chips Saturdays: SWERF & TERF Sunday Brunch: YECC's and FLERF's
Yeah the sheer hubris of a atheist to make such a claim. You are just intellectual lazy and cowardly. There is never enough evidence for you because you have a emotional reason to deny. You honestly think yourself more clever or possessing some special insight that no one esle has. Majority of your own ATHEIST Arguments are UTTERLY DISHONEST. You alteady deny god so any evidence to the contray you are predisposed to disbelief. That not open mind thats just you being intellectual lazy. Such a pity you lack introspection and the ability to see how absurd and childish your own Atheist world view is.
Ah the old twist on the "problem of induction" a la Sye Ten Bruggencate. Consider: when you question the validity of logic (the study of valid reasoning) what, then, are you using to question it? In other words, what axioms must you accept to be absolute so that you may doubt that those same axioms are absolute? Do you see the problem?
32:30 Someone explain this to me, please. I've been trying to understand this for days and I can not. How can one be left in doubt if 2 + 2 are really 4?
+Phal Redenferd Read my other comments. I have refuted what he said. Even this comment addresses one of his points. Haven't you listened to what he said? The method used by scientists and atheists is to go where the evidence leads. And he spoke against that.
There should be no "ism" on the end. To be an atheist is to simply not believe. So to refute that, you would have to prove that the atheist does believe. Even if you prove a god exists, doesn't mean people have to believe it. We've proved the world to be spherical, yet some still believe it's flat.
Where was the refutation? Still an atheist here. Nothing he said worked at all to refute atheism. Happy to discuss if someone wants. Has to be a civilized and respectful conversation.
Albert Camus and Friedrich Nietzsche very popular atheist philosophers both prove the absurdity of atheists and the logical conclusion of that world view. In short atheisms is self refuting, it proves its self pointless and absurd.
@@souzajustin19d atheism is not being convinced any gods exist. Theism is believing at least one god exists. That’s it for both. Doesn’t matter what some other philosophers said, considering they didn’t actually show atheism is absurd. What is the logical conclusion of atheism? How is it self refuting? How does it prove its pointless? Unless you are trying to do what Jeff does and make atheism more than what it actually is.?
@@souzajustin19d well how about you respond to what I said and asked first? Then I’ll be happy to answer your question. That’s kinda how conversations go.
I could bet you cant. I do bet i can refute atheism and expose its falsity. But 1st i need to understand what atheist you claim to be. Also i can promise you cannot and will not defend your atheism as atheism is indefensible. And because you cannot defend it, and you know you cant defend it, proves atheism is wrong. Since you know you cannot defend atheism, we all must ask and wonder why you actually still subscribe to a false ideology.
When your putting up a video that makes you feel all smart because you can finally say something to an atheist when he explains to you why your beliefs don't make any sense, you should probably make sure that you don't tell us in the title that you don't even know the definition of atheism. I doubt anything worthwhile is in this video.
So the pre-Christian Greco-Roman civilization (lacking Jesus) still managed to master Literature, Sculpture (Art) and Engineering (Mathematics). How did they do this without Jesus?
Well being created by God to have the capacity to do so seems to be a logical answer....im confused that you would ask that. Youre asking why would people who dont believe in Jesus be able to do things people are capable of doing? Why can a toddler speak a sentence?.... because it was made with that capacity.
@@rickdavis2235 Nope it is 14 billion years about, friend. Sorry you don't trust science. Yet you trust a book that was written by people who could barely read and write 2K years ago? Not good, friend. Think better.
Bro...I know. When I first found this neckbeard I was really hoping Aron or Matt Dillahunty had already gotten ahold of him. But then I realized people this articulate who intentionally mischaracterize arguments to this degree are also smart enough not to take public debates with trained killers like Aron & Matt.
A speech of more than one hour and still I didn't hear a consistent argument against atheism, you can't prove what doesn't exist and a book isn't a proof of anything, neither is your opinion or your feelings. Nevertheless I love Jeff's speeches with JW and mormons.
I can try to summarize it to the best of my ability, atheism had no basis to expect that the world is consistent, rational, or moral if there is no god. There has to be something supernatural holding the universe together for the world to react in a consistent and repeating way otherwise there is no justification for saying that it will be. There is no justification for universal morality if there is no god because there is no higher authority to give you it it’s only what you subscribe to. Ultimately the world does not make sense without God and scripture has accurately described what we see all over the world. But that is secondary to the revelation that Christ. Deep down you know that humanity is fundamentally evil because why else do we see people sink into selfishness and degenerate ways when barriers are eliminated. Christ is the solution to our evil problem because He died for you and I’s sin so that we are now capable of fighting the sinful ways. God is good, and we are so incapable of knowing anything in absolutes except what he has revealed.
O of course. Atheists don't have any true morals, nor can they even clearly define anything, so when a Christian questions you atheists about your morality you can not even understand your own views.
Right off the start of your video (around the 7-minute mark) you say agnostics believe you can't know anything, that is not true. As you pointed out agnosticism is a claim of knowledge with the Greek prefix meaning "to doubt." Agnostics claim: "that since we can never know if there is a god I choose to take the default position and not believe in one." I do agree with you that there has been a clash of ideas when it comes to agnosticism and atheism; however, I do believe that most atheist today are agnostic-atheist meaning. Since they don't know god exists--because agnosticism is a claim to knowledge--they choose not to believe in a god. Finally, when it comes to agnosticism they do not claim that nothing can be known for sure, but simply that the existence of god cannot be known. You continue to say that god has revealed himself through revelation to everyone, thus we all know there is a god. However, I would like to point out that just because you say something does not mean it is true. While you believe god has revealed himself to everyone, you don't actually know. For example, if someone tells you that they went to the store to get you ice cream. You trust that they are going to actually go and get you ice cream; however, you don't know 100% for sure if they're actually going to do it until they return back with your ice cream. Therefore, while they are gone you can't simply say "they're going to get me ice cream," because while they did tell you that you can't say absolutely that that is what they are doing--unless you're tracking them. Later on, you claim that you things with certainty because god told you so. You then try to prove this with what is said in the bible. You use the bible to prove your claim that god's word is the basis for certaincy; however, you only know god's word is the basis of certainty because the bible tells you so. Do you see how that doesn't make sense? What you did is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. At some point, you have to admit that you make an assumption--me personally I don't care where you make it. However, you have to be willing to accept the fact that you made an assumption because you cannot use the bible to prove the bible is right. Lastly, since I want to keep this short, I also want to touch on morality from a more atheistic perspective. While there is a lot more to this subject, there are a few major ideas I want to touch on. To begin, you have created this false dichotomy saying that if you believe in objective morality you have to believe in some god and if you believe in subject morality you do not believe in a god. However, this is not true there are some atheists who do believe in objective morailty. For example, Sam Harris he recently published a book about how objective morality can be explained through evolution and science. I do realize that may not be sufficient enough for you since you've already made up your mind on what an atheist most believe. Thus, I will try to show you how even with subjective morality we can still arrive at objective morals. In your video (I only made it in 20 minutes sorry) you claim that an atheist cannot say that it is an absolute moral obligation to not eat humans. Again, while there are some atheists who do believe in objective morality, they may answer yes. However, for those you don't, they could answer both ways and here's why. At the basis of everyone's moral system, there is some assumption, for christians, it is "God's word is true." By having this assumption you are then able to form objectives truths that agree with that. For me, the basis of my morals lies at the assumption that "the preservation and prosperity of human life is a good thing." While I may not know why it is a good thing, as long as I acknowledge that assumption I am able to form objective truths from it. In the same way, reasoning is subjective so is morality. In spite of trying to prove morality is subjective, I hope I have cleared up how an atheist can still--in some way--have objective morals, by having an underlining base assumption.
I also forgot to mention the false dichotomy you place between theism and evolution, they are not mutually exclusive like most evangelical Christians like to think.
I can most certainly say you lost every single person on this thread when you said circular reasoning. Two groups of people are king at circular reasoning Athiest and Mormons. Both hold true to liberal ideology. Both are completely false. I left both based solely on circular reasoning because it is my ultimate pet peeve. Be what ever you want but you can't be a hypocrite my guy. That was foolish
When you tell someone you believe that 13.8 billion years ago the luckiest thing you can ever imagine happened then 4.6 billion years ago another miracle happened then 4.5 billion years ago something else happened that almost destroyed earth then 4 billion years water randomly popped on earth then 3.8 billion years a bunch of molecules formed by a bunch of hot pots that made a chemical reaction under the water. You realize how dumb that sounds. God doesn't exist but all this took place billions of years ago but hasn't died off. No life on Mars but on earth a marine happened a billion years ago 😂
Morality is a product of society, not religion. This is demonstrated by society deciding that slavery is immoral and not religion. If you really read your bible, you'll not that slavery is endorsed by it.
@@nextlevelmartialarts At one time slavery was acceptable in the US. Society abolished slavery demonstrating my point. Don't draw me into this hypothetical strawman of a point.
This is not a refutation of atheism, it is a sermon, and a perfect example of why apologetics are only convincing to those who already believe. Christians, please, in the same way that you wouldn't go to a Buddhist to learn what Muslims believe, don't go to your pastor or favorite apologist to learn what atheists believe.
Please, there’s no honesty or integrity in Christian apologetics! Its truth seeking with an agenda Other than seeking truth, which means it isn’t truly truth seeking.
I used to be an Atheist. Then I became an Agnostic. Then God pulled me out of my life and revealed himself to me. The saddest part is that when I share my testimony, people don’t believe it’s possible for them. God promises us that he will reveal himself to those who seek him with all their heart mind and soul. “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the Lord, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.” Jeremiah 29:11-14 ESV bible.com/bible/59/jer.29.12-14.ESV Then I started reading and was not longer blinded. The Bible spoke the truth. The living word of God. I used to criticize but hardly read, or I read with judgement and out of context. Seek him and you’ll find the truth but we don’t because we love our sin. I know what atheists believe because I was one and I can testify to many refutable things Pastor Jeff says because that was me. I said all those things. I believe all those things. The roots are, we are at enmity with God because he is holy and we are yet sinners but Christ died for us to be forgiven. A FREE gift of eternity. Repent and trust in Jesus. It’s as simple as that, but people would rather eat their sin and enjoy the rotting pleasures of this world than have the blessings and gifts of everlasting life. It breaks my heart.
"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it." Billy Madison the movie.
That’s like saying that an apple is a representation of the “universal truth of red” numbers are just adjectives with which we describe reality, and the fact that something is abstract doesn’t mean that it’s mystical
48:28 "If we, as Christians, stand on the Revelation of God, and we get attacked by the unbeliever or challenged by the unbeliever; if we stand off of our Christian commitment and begin to behave like the unbeliever or reason like the unbeliever, if we adopt their perspective, if we pretend neutrality with them, then we'll be like them. We're gonna go where they're going. (...) if we pretend neutrality, we say "maybe Jesus Christ isn't who he claims to be," "maybe the word of God isn't what it claims to be," "maybe there is no God," "LET'S SEE WHERE THE EVIDENCE TAKES US." If we behave in that way, reason in that way, we lose the entire basis of knowledge, first and foremost, BUT WERE GONNA END UP REASONING LIKE THE UNBELIEVER." Durbin doesn't want you to reason like an unbeliever; he doesn't want you to go where the evidence takes you. That's what he just said in a very round-about way: going where the evidence leads is dangerous because there is no evidence for any god.
NicolSD no, he doesnt want you to say for example "maybe God doesnt exist" i dont agree with such claim, i however, after analyzing archeological, forensic, biological & astronomical evidence i have become an evidential apologist, as a genetics & evolutionary biology major, i find that the evidence for The existance of God is overwhelming, after you grant that, you gotta see what each religion preaches and see if any makes sense, if any is evidentially true, and honestly, christianity is. Forensic analysis lf the gospels (by atheists) prove that they are reliable eye witness accounts, archelogical discoveries have turned atheists arguments like "But the bible talks of non existant cities and nations!!" into christian apologist argument like "the bible has proved itself to be historically and archeologically accurate" Through physics, we can conclude that nothing can come from nothing, nothing is uncaused, yet atheist must accept an uncaused universe, which is nonesense. I highly respect stephen hawkins, but he makes the claim that the universe came into being through a singularity (which is scientific jargon for "physics dont apply here, idk"), yet never adresses the point of where the singularity comes from, and if he did, he would have to account for where the cause of the cause came from, and like that an infinite regression which is a logical fallacy. As a rational human, i'd say that if i were to find the most detailed instructions to how to build a space shuttle engraved in a rock, i'd not say "oh, through random chance, rain, wind, etc. This pattern appeared" because any complex coded information required just that, a code, which is an artificial pattern that cannot come from nature, yet we assign similar origins to life, with DNA for example. Also, christinity rests on the death and resurrection, which cannot be accounted logicially, except for the christian account (mind you, that people gained nothing from said revelations, they lost their jobs, status, relationships, etc. And became homless, persecutef everywhere, tortured, stoned, killed in the most horrendous and painful ways *for a lie they themselves fabricated?* )
I'm new to Apologia Studios. I've watched about five or six videos this past week and I really like what I see/hear. I really appreciate the respectful approach towards evangelism in the spirit of 2 Tim. 2:24-25: "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." I've engaged atheists on the internet for over 20 years. In the beginning, due to their often aggressive and arrogant approach (not all do this), I was very intimidated. But after a while you begin to see patterns in their arguments, and you find out that they usually approach the issue of God and religion the same way. Once I saw the logical flaws in their arguments, the attempts on their part to intimidate vanished away. I knew they were more bark than bite. So be encouraged, Christian. Our faith has many valid proofs. God has not asked us to walk blindly. Look beyond any shallow criticism or mocking to the substance of the message and you'll lose your fear and be able to logically refute their arguments. To the atheist, let me just say that it's important for you to understand a very fundamental fact: truth is truth whether you believe it or not. Truth is truth if no one believes it. It stands on its own and doesn't need support. So many of you imagine that unless YOU are convinced by the presented evidence it's not really evidence. Putting aside the arrogance of such a position, it's simply not logical. Again, if something is true it's true whether you believe it or not. So you can't logically and emphatically say, "There is no evidence for God!" All you can say is that you don't find the evidence compelling. Such a statement would be more in line with the truth. We then encourage you to keep your mind open and really examine the evidence thoroughly. Ask yourself (if you're really interested in finding the truth), "Am I missing something?" If you honestly seek, you will find the truth.
Saying that truth is truth whether we believe it or not (meaning truth is objective not subjective) is pointless to say. Atheists do not deny that there is objective truth - they just recognize that people believe according to their subjective idea of it, and that one can't just decree his subjective evaluation as objective. I can say atheism is true whether you believe it or not just as easily as you can say Christianity is true whether I believe it or not. The following videos are true whether you believe them or not ;) Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions): th-cam.com/video/RB3g6mXLEKk/w-d-xo.html Jephthah (Judges 11): th-cam.com/video/Pt66kbYmXXk/w-d-xo.html Perfect Double Standard: th-cam.com/video/ZyFM0_AhIYA/w-d-xo.html The Internet: Where religions come to die th-cam.com/video/0Rqw4krMOug/w-d-xo.html The Burden of Proof: th-cam.com/video/KayBys8gaJY/w-d-xo.html
@@ErikLiberty Oh, sure! Anyone can claim something is truth, and it’s usually derived from their subjective perspective. So how do we know if they are right or wrong? We lay that claim next to objective truth and see if it measures up, and we embrace or reject accordingly. The general conclusion you came to is true: we all use our subjective bias to interpret objective truth. But that begs the question: can objective truth therefore even be fully known if no one fully represents it? It wouldn’t seem so if I am understanding what you’re saying. However, I believe it exists beyond anyone’s bias and can be known. I believe it’s Christianity (whether I can fairly represent it or not). I know you disagree. So then I ask you, since you acknowledged objective truth, where is it, and how do you KNOW it’s true?
@@ErikLiberty You're right. (Although, there are plenty of people who do not believe in objective truth, so it's not pointless to state.) So, question: where is this objective truth and, if we are all biased, how can we truly recognize it?
You are correct. Truth is truth, or more accurately, reality is reality, regardless our thoughts opinions knowledge acceptance of it. But it also doesn’t do anyone any good if it is not recognized. And for claiming something as truth does not make it truth. Proclaiming the reality of a God does not make God a reality. Quoting a Bible verse that says I actually do know the true God does not do anything to support the claim. So while reality is reality irrespective how our synapses fire, we are the ones trying to figure out which understanding of reality is correct so that we can do life on this space rock together. So what am I missing?
@@mrhyde7600 Thanks for your comments. I guess the real question is, “What is the process by which we recognize reality?” And doesn’t that process need to be universal and standard for all, and doesn’t the reality need to be embraced NO MATTER when it is?
Respectfully that’s false… Every Apologetic that I have ever watched(at least) believes in God because of intelligent design that’s some of their main arguments… and that’s self contradicting for you to say that because a lot of atheists claim Religious people plug in “God” for hard to understand things that happen
@@Mojojojo335 of course I’m being hyperbolic but I don’t really understand your point. You’re saying people believe in God because of ID? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of an atheist or agnostic becoming a theist because of ID. It’s almost always someone trying to explain their belief in God in the face of biblical (just an example) contradictions with scientific theories like Evolution.
@@rethinking_reality no that’s not the only reason but that’s one of there main arguments to how they believe we are not here without some sort of god higher power…. Most Atheists don’t want God to exist(from my experience) …. I’m not a super strong Faith Christian I have a lot of nihilist views lol but it’s self defeating I asked my atheist friends and people online if god was proven to be true would you follow him and every single one of them said NO or either they hesitated
@@Mojojojo335 No sir, stop. It has nothing to do with wanting a god to exist. It’s about whether or not there is a justified rational reason to conclude one does. But choosing not to follow one has nothing to do with the desire for there to be one, it just means that they recognize that the God described in the Bible is morally a piece of shit, and following a moral piece of shit would violate their own moral standards. Me, I would sell out in a heartbeat, I’m not going to hell if there is a God, so allow me to be the first atheist to say screw that noise, I will throw my morality right out the window, all the while knowing I’m a better person than that God.
@@ManlyServant he’s not wrong-he does word salad and try’s to change little things here and there to help himself. Atheism-the lack of belief in a god or gods. Or not being convinced there are any gods. That’s it.
@@samanoski4 and the point I was making was that how does this apologist think he can refute atheism if he doesn’t understand the basics of the topic? Do you feel he refuted atheism? Some have the view/position of belief. Many don’t.
It's always wise to first understand what you are talking about. It doesn't seem very sensible to provide a group of people with incorrect information. And this gentleman has no idea what atheism means. And that is unfortunate because many Christians look at this and use this in a conversation with an atheist, and many atheists will not recognize themselves in this description of atheism. 'The atheist' and 'The Christian' simply do not exist, they can not easily be defined. An Atheist doesn't deny the existence of a god, but an atheist is not so sure if there is a god at all. That is a considerable difference! Atheism is certainly not a 'denial' of the existence of a god. To deny something that exists without a doubt and that something determines what happens with you after you die is not very logical. If the Christian claims that there is a god, then the Christian will have to prove it. The same applies to the atheist who claims that there is no god. An atheist may use false arguments for his / her unbelief, but that doesn't mean that there is a god. And that also applies to the Christian. Accepting good or bad arguments that reinforce your beliefs is personal. There are so many factors that determine how someone deals with logic. It's also very frustrating for both atheists and Christians when someone paints a false picture of what an atheist or Christian is or isn't, believes or doesn't believe. And when there's also a lot of ego and ridiculization involved then the irritation limit is reached quickly. That's never a good foundation for an honest discussion. I'm not talking about making jokes during a discussion, which can help keep a discussion light.
5:34 to skip past the initial bee ess where he starts talking about atheism, and quickly defines atheism as an assertion that gods don't exist and agnosticism as "we can't know anything (~ 7:10 )". Formally, atheism is just the lack of belief in gods, even though many atheists also declare that none of the popular gods exist. He might be forgiven for defining incorrectly for that reason. But the second is an even more absurd strawman. Agnosticism is not an assertion that nothing can be known, nor is it even an assertion that nothing can be known about gods, it's simply the opposite of gnosticism, which is an assertion of knowledge of gods. It's the same as saying "I don't know anything about any gods". I have to conclude the rest of this is equally moronic - just sheep baying to eachother for over an hour.
Atheism is the active assertion that there is no higher power, also known as naturalism. Agnosticism is the active assertion that it's impossible to know whether or not a higher power exists.
@@adriansoto239 I’m just saying that’s pretty authoritarian is all, your comment also implied that not blindly following a religion was dumb. Just saying when people don’t think for themselves and just go along and don’t question things rights get trampled and people get hurt for no reason,
Logical and Consistent, and testable - his argument to this is saying a "a child molester might say this is good". Morals are a combination of social and empathetic norms among a group of human beings that generally result in the best behavior for the group survival, as such I won't deny the benefits Christianity had on my early life in my personal development of morals or it's place in history, but like santa clause and my fear of getting coal in my stocking you eventually need to stand on your own two feet and take responsibility for your decisions. Regardless this not in any way proof of gods existence, in fact it's more proof of the damage continual believe in these things can cause, whether it's the fact that you believe god is required to tell you that child molesting is wrong to understand what is good or not, or whether it's a man blowing himself up to get 40 virgins because his god said it was ok, it makes you believe you aren't responsible for your own decisions when you are responsible for every action you take on this planet. all that said I still see no proof or argument to coincide with a refute to an atheist that requires "Logical, consistent an testable" proof. let me refute your argument with some of my own and I'll word it to any religion out their not just catholic. what proof do you have that your scripture is real? can you proof a single word in that scripture is authentic to the source it is supposed to be given from? even if you trace it's origins back to a person/persons and can proof that person/persons existence, can you provide proof in any way that the scripture is legitimately from a god/gods and not penned in a back wood as a means to gain social status/power or some other benefit. since I suspect you can't can you provide proof of any part of your religion without said scripture, what leg do you stand on after that...let's be honest here this video is not about refuting atheists because you can't do that, it's about the fact that you believe religion is helping this world, and while it has some advantages nothing in the history of this world has caused more death, genocides, subjugations, suffering, and pain as religion has caused to the human race over history. I will end on this note, you claim agnostics an atheists are the same thing, I will claim my view point because if I had to decide between the two I would identify as agnostic, I believe in the possibility of a creator but no religion to date can explain reality in the detail that needs to be done. as for organized religion that's a farce that I will never subscribe to again faith and religion are separate, the bible preaches peace and unity, the catholic church covers up child rapes, where was your epistemology when the pope was covering that up?
His epistemology would be that it's wrong to molest children because we all made in the image of God with intrinsic value, and harming other people is against God's nature. In your worldview, who says that molestation is really wrong? You? Society? If we are all just atoms bumping into one another and chemical reactions in our brain, maybe the chemicals in some peoples brain makes them think molestation is okay. Who's to say they are objectively wrong. If there is no God, no standard outside of human beings, how can one chemical tell another chemical what they "ought" to do. You can't tell me what to do, why are your chemical reactions in your brain superior over my chemical reactions. But if God created the universe, he has the right to tell me what to do and I am obligated to obey his rules, but im not obligated to obey yours, why don't you obey my rules, and do what my chemical reactions think are good.
If you have NetFlix there is a movie called, "Is Genesis History?" It is very good and they ask good questions. It may also be on TH-cam. They use scientific data and they analyze many questions. I watched it and in my opinion it proves with hard factual evidence that God exists. I hope it can help others believe too. Have a good day everybody!
@@TheSpacePlaceYT well first of all agnostics never say we can now anyting. Agnostic just means they're not super certain there is no God they don't even think it's not possible to know they just admit they don't know. So he talks about the definition of agnostic for 15 minutes and he doesn't know where the definition of agnostic mean that's the first issue
@@TheSpacePlaceYT yeah whenever somebody sends half of their time telling you what their opposition believes you should ignore them and just listen to what the opposition actually says.
The first idea is a giant straw man. Agnosticism doesn’t say knowledge in general is impossible. It says knowledge about certain things(god for example) is not available at the moment.
Right? Just provide the same evidence for a god as for all the other things we believe exist, and we'll believe the god exists. There is nothing impossible about that if the god does in fact exist. The ball is in the theists' court.
"Islam copies Christianity" ah yes because Christianity was the first religion, not like it directly takes from Judaism and incorporates many elements of other religions far older than it. Perhaps try reading more than 1 book.
Where do we start? The date of Christmas? All the other dates? The first half of the entire Bible (ok, that one is kind of unfair)? If we try to point out all of them we would still be here, when the universe ends...
It's difficult to continue watching after he mangles his definitions within the first 7 minutes. To clarify: Agnostic = without knowledge ( e.g. 'I don't know'). NOT 'I can't know.' Athiesm = without belief in god (e.g. 'I don't believe in god') NOT 'there is not god'
Dear someone at Apologia Studios, Please answer the following: 1. Yes or no, do you exist? If no, then how do you justify the claim that you do not exist? 2. Yes or no, are you certain that you exist? If no, are you saying that it is possible you do not exist? Please justify that! 3. If you have answered _Yes_ to 1. And 2., and are a proponent of the Presuppositional Worldview, you are now making a knowledge claim that: (A) You exist. As well as, (B) The only way you can have knowledge, is to know everything. Meaning: - Being God or to have things revealed to us by One that knows everything. If yes, please justify the knowledge claim that you exist using your presuppositional worldview on how knowledge is gained. 4. If you counter is to say, _“God has revealed to me that I exist; and the fact that I exist allowed me to receive and retain that knowledge,”_ then please answer: Yes or no, would you agree that _if_ the absolute truth or validity of your claim (B) depends on your presuppositional claim/epistemology (A), then, would you not have to have absolute knowledge of (A) to be certain that (B) is true? If no, please justify that! 5. Yes or no, would you agree that in order to have something revealed to you, you must exist in order to be able to receive it? If no, then how do you justify how God can reveal things to people who don’t exist? yYM
@@davidlegkodukh6969 uhm, no. It's the ability to dismiss an idea that makes everything that someone else is telling you you believe, fall apart. I don't believe what this idiot claimed in this video, just because I'm an atheist. He misrepresented atheism, and much of the science, and told people what they know and don't know.
Micaela Grant It’s your time to waste. Seems that there are a million better things to do with your life than be concerned with the fact that other people don’t share your delusions.
How to be saved and be right with God for eternal life! 1-Admit you’re a sinner and be willing to turn from your sins towards God. 2-Believe onto Jesus Christ,who being the Son of God, died on the cross, was buried and resurrected for the forgiveness of our sins as a free gift. 3-Confess onto God, asking to be saved accepting this free gift of salvation, to start a new life being born again after being saved from your sins. Scripture links below. The romans road to salvation. 1.Romans 3:10, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" 2.Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” 3.Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." 4.Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for all that have sinned:" 5.Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” 6.Romans 10:9, “That is thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” 7.Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. More scripture. John 3:16-17 16."For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” 17.”For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” Romans 5:8-9 8."But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9."Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Corinthians 15:1-4, 1."Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2."By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.” 3."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;” 4."And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”
@@SNORKYMEDIA Just because the message is Copy+pasted, does not make the message any less true. Without accepting the free gift of salvation, you will be judged by God for all your sins (being all wickedness you have ever done or thought), which leads to the rightful judgement of God onto your soul ,which is casting your soul (which can not die) into a lake of fire to burn forever.Thankfully this is easy to avoid, not through the cancer that is organized religion, but through accepting the free gift of salvation God has provided to us (by our own free will,seeing as God will not force his will onto you, even to your own detriment of being judged for your sins), that is simply that Jesus Christ (God manifest in the flesh), paid the full price for all your sins through his death,burial than resurrection as a free gift to whosoever asks God to be forgiven through it (by apologizing for your sins and asking God to forgive you through accepting this gift, while you are alive) with there being no other steps needed to be forgiven of your sins and given eternal life (which can not be lost).Of course it is your own choice to do so (or not to do so), and even if you do not make that choice now, if you do ever change your mind and want to get saved (wile you are alive anyways), God can + will forgive you of all your sins should you come to him at any point you are alive (seeing as God wants everyone to be saved). The romans road to salvation. (The scripture from God's only perfect word, the King James Bible, on the steps to getting saved, if you are curious) 1.Romans 3:10, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" 2.Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” 3.Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." 4.Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for all that have sinned:" 5.Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” 6.Romans 10:9, “That is thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” 7.Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
I hadn’t realize others were present to witness Moses conversation with deity. Or any who were present to give an account of Abraham’s encounters. Interesting to say the least.
@@adamfoster6313 That is also allegedly, same with the 500 people who witnessed Christ, in one testimonial, yet I find it is often cited like they have 500 accounts of Jesus when they really only have a few if even that.
So how do you completely refute the fact that I do not believe in any sort of deity? Try leaving your straw man and home and bring honesty and evidence to the table. Just sayin'
A wise man said, circa year 1000, immortalized as Psalm 14:1: The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Once you study and understand material biology, it becomes increasingly difficult to build philosophical foundations on immaterial constructs based on centuries of flawed materialism. If you possess objectivity, have a read of 'In Six Days ' Why 50 Scientists choose to Believe in Creation.
@@BrendanLightfoot Circa 1,000BCE David might have said "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God", but even if he had it's not evidence for a God If anything it's much easier to establish axioms with materialism to use as philosophical foundations; we're all made of matter and our experiences are an interaction of that matter; consciousness; our consciousnesses like to be happy so we should organize ourselves in a way that maximizes this; morality "In Six Days" has no new arguments
@@Zederzzz I'm sorry you feel that way. You may be used to arguing with well intended, if occasionally annoying Christians, but at their core, they want you to come out the other side of death in a better place. One cannot be reasoned or cajoled into the correct, Christ-centric spiritual position. Each conversion is a miracle and sadly, most of us are far too proud to ever get there. We call it having a burden for the lost, as we know what comes after death, and don't want that for you.
@@BrendanLightfoot please don't feel too sorry for us Brendan, but thank you for the concern :) "The road to hell is often paved with good intentions" - but unfortunately intentions are not proof for the intended thing, as much as they are appreciated It's interesting you say no one can be reasoned into believing, and each conversion is a miracle; is that openly saying reason and evidence are not the most important thing to Christ-centrism?
Nick Jones, Besides the Gospel accounts who's earliest manuscript dates to around A.D. 41. There is Talmud whose volumes mention Jesus, Jesuphus who mentions Him in his works on Jewish History, Tacitus in his Annals, and Lucian of Samosata in his highly antiChristian satires.
Nick Jones Yawn...it doesn't matter. They had more access to sources than we do. Not to mention the existence of not 1 but 4 accounts of the life of Christ all of which are dated at exactly that time frame.
Nick Jones, The heavens declare the glory of God, the complexity and size are not something chance can make no matter how many years go by. But here is a question for you. Why do you care?
Nick Jones Well yes, it does. It is the Atheist position that the universe came about by chance accident. Now if you object to this then you are going to have to demonstrate how the cause of the universe and everything in it would have to be without personality and intelligence, and still willfully make everything. If not then the only thing else is mere random chance. Also, concerning your second part. That begs two more questions. Why does stardust infused descendants of fish (im referring to humanity) matter enough to care about morality? And underwhat basis is there a single moral notion that objectivity true under your world view?
About it being broadcast to everyone: what about when God speaks to Noah and Moses where He meets with him privately and gives him things to tell others about, how can I separate that in their minds from what Joseph Smith talks wbout
Because it was proven to be true throughout history. Joseph Smith and other Christian cults use the same model but its obviously false due to the fact nothing they’ve prophesied has come to pass
That which is presented without evidence can be refuted without evidence. You didn't refute anything, you just tried to make yourself sound reasonable in the face of an overwhelming void of any actual evidence for god.
Bunch of non-sense in this video. Explains atheism and agnosticism wrong. Real simple to make atheism go away: define your deity and provide evidence for her. Video is good for the gullible.
It happened 2,000 years ago, which was prophesied before that time in the old scriptures. Videos can be edited, and eye-witness evidence isn't substantial. How then do you "prove" anything.
Yeah, you is good for a laugh, isn't he? So blatantly ignorant, and so loudly proud of it. ... You should know that arbitrary comments can always be turned back on their user, so I don't recommend using them.
You used a logical fallacy... Any arbitrary comment can be reversed on the opponent, it shows the one who uses it that their comment really had no real teeth. I could just say "Why is using Troll Tactics Objectively wrong in your World View."... And you'll say "it's not objective" reducing it to an opinion, and then once again you have no teeth. Your floor though.
Pick fights? I'm showing you made a Logical Fallacy and to reveal that your World View makes you blind to it. Your World View is Self-Refuting, it wont be able to account for Logic, Knowledge, Memory, or Morality.
@@BoyKagome the atheist, "worldview" is not self refuting. And please provide your evidence that atheists cannot account for logic, knowledge, memory, or morality. Because we can account for all of those. Logic is just an observation of the nature of reality. In fact your God is actually subject to and if he existed would have to obey the laws of logic as well. In other words logic is more powerful than your God. Knowledge? Knowledge is just information. We learn, which is all gaining knowledge is, learning, about the world around us and we have gained knowledge as we have learned more. So it is a human endeavor and were very good at it. Memory? Memory is a product of the brain. The brain stores information. It does so via a chemo electric system. Do we understand perfectly? No we do not. But we do understand that memory is held within the brain, which makes memory a physical construct. Finally morality. It's very easy to understand how morality is an evolved trait. It falls out of our empathy, which is ALSO an evolved trait. So you lose on all of these, and you cannot demonstrate why any of them would be dependent upon your invisible mythological sky fairies that we already know does not exist
@@keithziegler8881 How can you say you see reality when your world view states we gained sight based off of survival? How do you know we didn't evolve to not see things that would be dangerous for us to see?
It's very impressive how he can debunk statements from people who are not there to defend them (and most likely never said them to begin with...). And attributing everything to Jesus, even math, without even showing any type of evidence for it...
@@wallchart111 you don't need God to be able to see two objects plus two objects is four objects math is a language we've created to explain how the world works around us no God is anywhere in this entire process. Logic is also a man-made creation that's been developed and is continuing to be developed now it's not done being created it never will be done it is a human construct
anyone who trying to debunk this video need so do it with fact fact fact fact fact fact!!!!! Not opinion!!!! but you won't because you can't so go-ahead and just keep helping us prove you wrong. Thanks Jeff for the video as always.
Ok, here's something. He says at about 7:40 that agnostics make the claim that we can't know anything. No they don't, they claim we can't know anything about any God, not everything. That is one large strawman he then goes on to dismantle.
So this guy here mostly just presented his opinion because most of his facts are mixed with opinions or are simply wrong like for example the case given on the 7:40 minute but no one says he need to give facts, but those who dont agree with him (radical atheists) must criticize him only with facts... completely fair. But remember, he explicity apeal to logic, "things must lo be logical and reasonable" so if logic does no support his claims then he is wrong, that is a fact an can be expresed as an opinion, normally christian apologists try to debunk atheists point of view going deeper into the issue, but they if you do the same with them just tell you that should give them facts and not opinions. A simple example can be showed when he says god knows everything, wich is logical, his logic and knowledge must be perfect, then why the people who claims to know the word of God or be able to interpret it always had to change their point of view because logic and experience told them (actually the people that guides themselves with logic told them) that they were wrong? We can see it in how christians and church have change their mind on topics like human rights, science, respect other`s ideas and be more pasive in their practices (like for example not to exclude or persecute people that do not have their same believe) obviously im excluiding some christian cults, talking about those cults, they believe like you or even more than you they have the right interpretation of the God`s word, by the same epistemology method "revelation", how can you tell them they are wrong if they believe for the same reasons that you in their own believes? Their parents taught them their religion, then grew up being indoctrinated and rectificate their believes with their ows cultural videos and multimedia, like this video for probably catolic people there are a lot of indoctrinating videos for JW and mormons, and to conclude, if God`s logic is completely right, then how can be posible that he condenms completely natural and inherentic bahave in humans? The fact that non believers exists is because their reasoning and logic lead them to the conclusion that religion is similars believes are ilogic, if god exist and like he said thing must be reasonable and logic so atheist`s logic must be wrong, suposing that it is true then why god would create humans with enough intelligence to be able to doubt about his existence with what they think are logical arguments and then condenms them for that? If you need to be very intelligent to believe in god or at least believe in him by logic and atheists are not smart enough because of their nature is logic that it is not their fault to be stupid but anyways you condems them, you can say that their have persons like this one to show them the way, but as you can see i have strong reasons to say he is wrong, so im so there are two possibilities, or im so stupid that i cant even understand his precise and undisputable logic or im right... Judge by yourself
and this guy really typifies humility. he's not only lying about what agnostics believe, and lying about what atheists believe (he sure doesn't know why i'm atheist) but he's misrepresenting his own god, who made atheists and agnostics. isn't there a place that liars get sent to? santa claus: knows who is naughty, knows who is nice. god: knows who is naughty, knows who is nice.
@@HarryNicNicholas You're appealing to ethics, the universal laws of logic, induction (the uniformity in nature) every single moment of your life. You're claiming there is no God with your mouth, but how you are living is not consistent with your view of the world. My argument for God is the impossibility of the contrary. Apart from God, you wouldn't be able to frame or even make sense of what you are talking about. Apart from God, your worldview is reduced to absurdity. Atheism has no basis that would satisfy the preconditions necessary for intelligibility. To appeal to universal laws of logic, uniformity, induction, ethics, or even morality.
@@palerity6320 You are pretending to know of an objective morality. You don't, and that is why you cannot supply anyone with a single objective reason for why rape and murder are wrong. Unlike you, all I need is love, empathy, sympathy, pity, and a sense of fairness to tell me what to do. People who need an objective reason to not commit rape and murder are most likely psychopaths who don't know what empathy and love are. The funny thing is, the rules of logic show the Bible is wrong about just about everything, so not even God agrees with it.
I have to be honest here, i only saw a small part of this video. But the title of this video is weird to me, because what exactly is there to refute about atheism? If your answer is their claim that god doesn't exist you're wrong because the vast majority don't make that claim, instead atheists don't believe in a god because they haven't seen the evidence of one existing. What i'm trying to say is, what are you trying to refute?
frisianmouve well the whole point of this guy's little chat is to describe atheism as what it is not so that he can argue it. Bit like saying that if you do not believe in the loch Ness Monster you must believe that a sperm whale lives in loch Ness.
Phelan Can I just say that it is understood by bible scholars who both do and do not believe in a God, that the reason true Christians no longer follow that law is because of the old covenant being fulfilled in the death of Christ and the new covenant started upon His resurrection. And if you read the Bible objectively, seriously don't look to form any conclusion of deity, then perhaps it could be read without bias. If you believe then cool, if you don't then cool.
frisianmouve he is arguing against people making g a truth claim that there is no God (atheism means no god). Saying I don't know if there is a God or I haven't seen any evidence of God is different. Christians believe that God is self evident. In other words, it's kind of like ants walking on your arm debating over whether or not people exist. It's so vast that they can't even see it and it is taken for granted. We are living and breathing evidence of God's existence. Thought, Truth, physics, nature all the things which make up our universe all are evidence. To Christians, making a claim that there is no evidence of God is kind of like saying there is no evidence that breathing exists while you are using your breath to say it (and also to keep yourself alive). It's ridiculous on its face. And thus the debate rages on :)
I heard a lot of claims and a LOT of begging-the-question. If an objective foundation is required for all he's talking about re: epistemology, math, logic, etc.,... Why is he automatically assuming it's the Judeo-Christian concept of God that serves as this foundation?
Well if you know anything about religion you'll know the biggest factor but you never studied and I won't waste my time other than look at the prophecys they'll tell you about all these. Hindu dosnt believe they have the God but worship lower God's and they don't denie there can be a higher power God they just don't know. Jews is the beginning of Christianity Muslims said a book is not right then took the wrong book and changed it witch it was wrong it's wrong can't be from God. Both the Quran and the Bible both say his word won't pass or go away but Bible was way before Quran so Quran was written off Bible. If Bible is wrong you can just say his word is pure forever not changing then change it. Remember Quran says this too it won't change. Mormans heads refuse the kjv and say they have the same but say things that contradict the Bible. They tell another gospel and the heads say Bible is wrong but then say its not at times just depends on what they want to use out of it. Jeff durbin explain morman well. Don't you see that most are written off Bible. They all come from Abraham who the seed was promised. Maybe look up 100 scientific facts in Bible. Look up last war bet Armageddon comes up funny only in Bible.
@@mremberton7919 _"but you never studied and I won't waste my time"_ You know nothing about me or what I've studied. A rather poor and arrogant way of beginning your comment. _"Hindu doesn't [sic] believe they have the God but worship lower God's and they don't deny [sic] there can be a higher power God they just don't know."_ Hindus believe in God: Brahman, expressed or manifested as a creator (Brahma), destroyer (Shiva) and preserver/sustainer (Vishnu) re: existence. So why is Brahman automatically disqualified as the objective foundation, and what method do you use to test which concept of God is 'true'? _"Both the Quran and the Bible both say his word won't pass or go away but Bible was way before Quran so Quran was written off Bible."_ This is a separate issue: scriptural inerrancy. In reality, both the Bible & Qur'an are collections of writings and both have errors in them. The Bible sitting in your house contains stories that even devout Christian scholars admit don't belong there. For example, the story of the woman caught in adultery. It never happened. Not a single early Greek manuscript of the gospels contains it; it was added centuries later. Another example: 'Matthew' places Jesus' birth before the death of Herod the Great (4 BC), while 'Luke' places Jesus' birth during the census of Quirinius as governor of Syria (6 AD), 10 years after Herod had died. Both cannot be right. Ergo, your argument against the Qu'ran is moot. Mormonism is just a 19th century bastardization of Christianity, started by a fraud who was obsessed with hunting for treasure. So no argument there. _"...100 scientific facts in the Bible"_ There are plenty of scientific errors in it as well. We all know plants/vegetation couldn't grow and cover land (day 3) if the sun didn't even exist yet (day 4) in Genesis 1. We know via genetics that Genesis 30's account of striped and spotted sheep breeding is nonsense. We also know the Flood was a local event, not one that reduced the human population to only 8 people (who allegedly had to have a lot of incest in order to start repopulating the planet). So once again, why is Jeff assuming his concept of God is this necessary objective foundation?
20:30- No. its not consistent with a chair...but I digress. Making universal claims is the problem with this argument. Loving your neighbor and not eating them is relative. Aside from some crazy hypotheticals such as cannibalizing your neighbor because that's the only way to save them from some horrible fate or something weird like that, there's never a good reason to eat your neighbor. But it is not an "absolute moral obligation that we love our neighbors and not eat them." It is a RELATIVE moral obligation. Say your neighbor was a chicken. You never said your neighbor was necessarily human. is it still an absolute moral obligation to love the chicken and not eat it? All things are relative to the specific context. It is a moral obligation to act according to empathy and, if not, there are physical consequences such as reciprocal retribution or legal action. That's how it works in reality where I live. In your emotional fantasy world, you only act morally because "god said so." You, and all your christian friends, are dishonest. You are only moral because you were told to be so. That is dishonest morality.
I absolutely love it when pastor Jeff says "ready?" and "watch this"
Same! He always gets my full attention with these phrases and it’s so endearing
Me to. Its normally his cue to make a baseless assertion, a strawman or to demonstrate the dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of Christians!
absolutely? Isn't everything relative?😉
@@jonnyrondo507 Why do you like your own comments? Feeling insecure about something?
@@petros-petra i like his comments to.
Apologetics like this are why religion is dying. You can't make such obvious mistakes about simple definitions, like agnosticism and atheism, without people doing 5 minutes of research and disproving you.
This will help you:
Gnostic theist: I believe God exists, and I also know God exists.
Agnostic theist: I believe God exists, but don't claim to know God exists.
Agnostic atheist: I don't believe God exists, but don't claim to know God doesn't exist. (most atheists, like me, are here for many definitions of God)
Gnostic atheist: I don't believe God exists, and also claim to know God doesn't exist.
Just for your reference, theists. You won't look so silly right off the bat if you at least understand the terms you're trying to use. Also that's not an ad hominem fallacy, he straight up lies about definitions and literally makes himself look like he has no idea what he's talking about.
Most of you don't even know who are either. I understand where you are coming from but that's a lot of bureaucracy to direct yourself at the same basis at the end of the day: doubt!
@Danny Pipes You did, at least enough to read and comment ;)
@Danny Pipes The "dorky" definitions matter when he is attempting to refute definitions that are not correct
It looks like you are describing yourself.
@Danny Pipes What's so pompous about two very different definitions of atheism, when there are countless different sects of Christianity? Are they all just looking to "rebrand?" Despite my beliefs, I still respect all denominations' beliefs, and don't arrogantly dismiss them for not wanting to be misrepresented. Many atheists felt like their ideology was misreprented by this video, meaning the entire video was straw-manning. But by all means, keep smoking your tobacco so you can rush to meet your maker.
How to strawman atheists and agnostics, or how I learned to stop worrying and love the lies
Cry more
@@Kehvo_exe he’s not wrong.
@@Kehvo_exe cope
Looks like the heavenly father became the father of lies. Who would've thunk it?
You're only revealing you didn't bother paying attention to context if you think he strawmanned agnosticism or atheists. Watch it again, while noticing he was speaking about Epistemology when he said agnostics claim to not be able to know anything with certainty.
@17:50 a laundry list of claims, with not citations. (the brain thing excluded) Where is the evidence? Which source, besides the bible, did you get any of this evidence? hmm?
You didn’t get it.
The Christian apologetic uses the Bible as our basis of truth. If you don’t agree with it then reject it and move along. If you had something that you knew to be the truth why would you try using something else to prove it to be true?
Easiest thing in the world to refute atheism.
Just show actual evidence that god exists.
Sadly, no theist has ever done this, so I'm still an atheist. You CLAIM you have evidence. But you don't, you just say you do.
'drops a pen' I have just demonstrated the phenomenon we call gravity. Show me evidence akin to that for god, and I will believe. Until then, don't waste my time.
Thomas Dwyer God don't play like that. If you want Him to up, you seek. Sincerely. If not--fine, God doesn't exist for you and you can live your life.
Then that god isn't worth believing in much less worshipping. I shouldn't have to seek out someone who wants me to beleive they exist in the first place.
They should just show they exist 'drops a pen' like I can show gravity exists
A person or being who does that is just a dick, and even if you do believe in him/her/it I have no idea why you would worship such a bizzarely silly being.
Thomas stop acting like a baby for Petes sake. Jeez.
Ad hominem 'shrug'
Thomas Dwyer
Not an ad hominem. Perhaps God hid Himself so that self-entitled people like you can't reach out to Him. Only for people who seek the truth will He reveal himself to.
Sadly, you probably know your audience well enough to think this will strike them as valid logic.
@zzpfft hm... not sure how to make it clearer...
I think the man in the video (con man, charlatan, swindler, bullshit artist) understands his audience (the people listening intently to him) well enough to be confident they will find what he is saying (selling) is actually logical and valid (instead of complete and utter crap) and not wonder what the hell he has been smoking (pot, grass, ganja, weed)
Hopefully this cleared up any confusion.
@zzpfft No offense taken. If you're not interested in my opinion I suggest not reading them... and certainly not writing to me asking for more of them.
And the 5 black belts mean what...?
@zzpfft Then I would suggest you don't know much about martial arts.
He is not "teaching Love ,Joy,and Peace to total strangers," he is making money by selling a product. And his income is based on his customers not looking too hard.
@zzpfft cool.
Breaking News : The universe farted and everything suddenly existed.
7:45 Why does Jeff give an inaccurate description of agnosticism? Agnosticism is not the claim "We cannot know anything." Especially when referring to the god context that he's using, the agnostic position is "I do not know if there's a god." The agnostic may also claim that "We cannot know whether there's a god or not." Jeff's "refutation" to this claim is simply saying, "Do you know that?" and claiming that the agnostic's claim is self-refuting. Sorry, this is a poor start.
Well, he IS an apologist... his job it to make shit up in order to perform the mental gymnastics required to justify his belief in Yahweh
@@keystonelyte Naturally.
I'm a christian pilot and I thank God for giving us the ability to produce engineer aerodynamic aircrafts while also thanking him for our dense air that allows for aircrafts to fly. :)
You have no proof that your God exists
I laughed out loud (even snorted a little) watching this, because of how contradicting, ignorant and patronizing it was. He’s a great speaker, but wow, the actual stuff he says (if you actually listen to his words/claims/arguments) are abysmal. He gets definitions all screwed up. He makes up stories, he gives bad examples, and it’s as if he doesn’t know what he is saying, he’s just talking to be heard. And I am guessing the folks who listen and nod their heads are either doing that because they either like the sound of his voice or they are just as ignorant. Or both.
But if this is an example of good Christian apologetics, then that is very sad for Christianity. Someone actually interested and wanting to go over your arguments can easily watch your video more than once and break down your definitions/claims/arguments, and see very clearly how they fail,. And wow do they fail miserably!! And I keep saying wow, because of how great someone can speak, but say something so profoundly ignorant and devoid of any intellectual value.
Funny, because you just did the same thing you accused Jeff Durbin of doing. You wrote a whole paragraph saying how he failed miserably while not actually saying how he failed. Pretty sure we call that Hypocrisy!
@@TexterEX He put out an hour and 20 minutes making bad claims and arguments. I gave a short 2 paragraph opinion, which was critical of the video. Do you want me to break down his video and tell you what he got wrong? I will do that if you really care. If you just want to call me a hypocrite, that's up to you. But that means that people with an opinion can't disagree with this guy, or you for that matter, unless they fully explain their position or else you'll call them a hypocrite. I think that's ridiculous. I think you need to have a better handle on what being a hypocrite means.
Well, do you want me to fully explain my position? Are you even interested in the conversation?
@@smequals yesz go ahead id like to see what you can come up with, or were your claims just "ignorant"
@@TexterEX Ok, I'll hit a few highlights right from the beginning (I mean, it is nearly an hour and 20 minutes, so that's a lot of crap over a long period of time).
[2:22] he mentions Sye Ten Bruggencate, who is a fraud and complete idiot when it comes to apologetics. And honestly, Jeff here has no credibility at this point with me. Perhaps you still, but believe me, if he’s taking a page from Sye’s book, he’s also a fraud. And then he talks about how Christian Apologetics is not about memorizing a script. Well, that’s EXACTLY what Sye does, and I’m pretty sure most Christian Apologists actually do. I bring this up because it is important later.
[6:12] He’s saying that classical atheism says, “there is no god”. Well, the big reason why is that religion has always painted atheism as evil, wicked, of the devil, and as people who declare there is no god. But he’s setting up a straw man argument, because you’ll actually find very few atheists who say, “there is no god”. They say, “I don’t believe in god”, because that is truly what atheism is. He already tries to go back to a bad definition of atheism because it feeds his narrative, but it’s a straw man argument. Also, he continues about agnosticism, but it’s not like agnostics are agnostic about everything as he stated. He totally misrepresents agnosticism, which gets a laugh from the crowd. Being an agnostic when it comes to god means that we don’t know a god exists. And anyone who claims they do know better bring compelling evidence, or they should not convince anyone except the most naïve and gullible people. You can be an agnostic atheist, which means that you don’t know a god exists, and therefore you don’t believe a god exists. That is a very reasonable position, and it doesn’t need justification. I don’t know is a very honest position, and instead of making stuff up (like a god), more people need to go with that than lie to themselves.
[7:45] Jeff says it is not a word game, but then plays the Sye Ten Bruggencate classic word game. Wow!! Not even 10 minutes in and you can’t even trust the guy to make good arguments.
[8:15] Jeff starts talking about atheism and agnosticism being the same, and starts talking about their world view being tied to Darwin, evolution, and all kinds of stuff under a “world view”. This is again a straw-man argument. He already misrepresented the terms, now he’s trying to lump everything together under a conflicting world-view to Christianity. Big huge obvious straw man, as atheism is not a world view. Agnosticism is not a world view. People have world views. Religions can define their own world views. But having a lack of knowledge of a god, or not believing in a god, is not a world view. And to associate anything with agnosticism or atheism like that is completely wrong. Again, a straw man, because he’s creating an argument that atheists and agnostics aren’t making so he can easily knock them down.
[8:42] Jeff mentions origins. Why are origins even brought up? Who said atheists (or agnostics) have a view or idea of origins? Another straw man argument. He assumes all atheists (or agnostics) believe in the same things, and that is not the case. And even if it was, it would be a non-sequitur anyway, as origins are not defined or even implied by atheism (or agnosticism), so why even make that argument? Well, I think we know why he does. He’s creating a divide between Christianity and what he views as non-Christianity, and in the process painting atheists (and agnostics) as being in the wrong. Well, he fails at that. And in the process, shows that instead of making good arguments for his god and Christianity, he just wants to muddy the water and continue his straw man argument.
[12:37] Jeff says how do you know? God says so! That’s his words, not mine. And this is just after he rejected the idea of faith being a way to truth (which I agree with). Well, my question would be, “how do you know God said it?” And then he declares that Christianity is different from all other “revelational epistemologies” because God somehow speaks through everything we do and say. And listen to his double-speak - he says that other religions have revelational epistemologies, but they only speak to one person, while his triune god speaks through everything. His justification? Let’s go to the Christian holy book, where it says stuff to back him up. Wow. And don’t you think for a moment that Muslims can make the same claim? He says no, but a couple of billion Muslims will probably disagree, as their book makes similar claims as well, justified by their book. So, good for him. He makes the same argument other religions do, and brings no evidence to the table. Typical religious apologist right there.
Ok, so I’m less than 20 minutes in, and I’ve already pointed out a bunch of issues. I’ve got other stuff to do, so I’m going to stop for now. If this isn’t enough to satisfy you, then I you're probably not going to be satisfied if I keep going. I don’t plan to change your mind anyway. I’m sure you’ll say that what I wrote is wrong or that I took things out of context or that I’m just a stupid atheist and just don’t get it. Or whatever, it doesn't matter. Believe what you want, I stand on my original statements. If you want to refute me, please go ahead. But let me warn you - if you make claims that you can't support by good evidence, then who cares?! Not me, that's for sure.
Jeff is a con man, and if you don’t want to see that, then that’s on you. I’m certainly not buying his rubbish!
@@smequals 1:I haven't heard of Sye Ten Bruggencate, but you didn't really give me a good reason to believe why he's fraud, so I would have to go off your opinion on that.
2: If you ask any atheists if God exists they would say he does not, I don't know what type of atheists you've seen.
3:Again, you've said he is playing word games but failed to give me any good reason to believe he is, so again, I would have to just take your opinion.
4: You said that classical atheists wouldn't say God does not exist they just don't believe in him(sounds like a different branch of agnostic to me), but here you are saying Jeff is wrong for tying atheism and agnosticism together. Make up your mind.
5:You say atheism has no view of origins, ever heard of evolution?
6:A Muslim trying to say "God says so" would just be really agreeing with Christians because the Quran itself says to go to gospel first for instructions.
(Also it sounds like you're playing words games when you say "atheists don't say there is no God they say they don't believe in one" again, you're being a hypocrite by claiming Jeff/Sye is playing games while you're playing word games.
You said that difference between Christianity and other revelational epistemology like Mormonism 14:10 is that Mormon revelations were private. Uhm, wasn't the revelation to Moses, who supposedly wrote the entire first 5 books of the Bible, done in _private_ ...? Wasn't the 10 commandments given to him in private?
Wasn't every revelation written by the prophets of the OT given in private?
Wasn't the revelation of the book of (drum roll) Revelation, supposedly given to John completely in private while he was secluded on the island of Patmos?
Your argument completely invalidates the entire Bible. Well done.
He's obviously referring to the foundational texts of Christianity: the 4 gospels, from which we can deduce the near fullness of the Christian faith.
Christ's ministry was public and was transcribed by eyewitnesses. That's unique amongst religions, and should give us more epistemological certainty to the truth of our faith than competing faiths. Admittedly, it does not follow from this that Christianity is true. This is just one more piece of evidence pointing towards the truth of Christianity.
@@scootermcgavin7986 that is utterly false. Not only is it not "obvious" that he is referring to only the 4 Gospels, he in fact explicitly says that he is not. He speaks of the revelation of the entire Bible. That revelation is just as private as any other religion. It is a completely dishonest framing to claim otherwise.
He even specifically goes into OT revelational texts like Proverbs to make his point. 15:50
The vast majority of the Bible is private revelation, just like every other Revelation epistemology. The Gospels, on the other hand, are not revelation at all. They are a narrative story. Period.
@Daniel Gigante "Didn't watch the whole video (I guess I lose)."
Yeah it's kind of silly to argue with me about my position on what is stated in the video without watching the video.
"While that's true, the vast majority of the deposit of the faith"
No one was talking about the "deposit of the faith". What does that term even mean? If it means the public life of Jesus described in the Gospels... well then your statement is a completely useless tautology.
"To say they're not revelation is simply going off the rails."
If you want to call all narratives in holy texts public revelation, I am fine with that. This means that the Islamic holy texts which tell of Mohammad ripping the moon in twain, are public revelation. This means that the tales of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon from golden tablets of an unknown Egyptian dialect by looking into a hat, are public revelation. This means the story of Xenu, leader of the Galactic Confederacy, bringing billions of humanoids to Earth, is an extremely public revelation.
+Apologia Studios and specifically +Jeff Durbin I must say that find it extremely difficult to take Pastor Jeff seriously in this sermon/lecture. This is primarily due to Jeff's constant misrepresentation of claims made by Atheists, Mathematicians, Scientists, etc. and it become even more difficult to do so when we consider the absolutist and dogmatic claims (that btw, Jeff failed to in anyway demonstrate are probable let alone are established absolute "Fact/Truth") sprinkled throughout his preachings.
In short this speech is indicative off nothing more than the oh so familiar echo chambers that some christians feel are effective. Let me assure you my friend/s preachers like Jeff have no effect (outside perhaps confirming how little religion actually has to offer) on individuals who actually care about finding truth not "Truth.
Finally, As a side note to Jeff personally, Jeff based on your propertied encounters with people holding differing view points from your own all I can say is it would seem to the uninformed viewer that you have yet to encounter someone who has given these issues much thought &/or effort. However, after searching the internet I came to discover numerous discussions/debates where you are provided with much more substantive responses to your "questions", so I find it interesting (and even more telling) that you would choose to highlight the "answers" you have in this talk. With that said if you would ever like to discuss any of these topics with someone who is able and most willing to provide better answers your questions and perhaps even some refutations to your claims I would be more than will to offer my services.
Thanks for your time,
Ned (~P)
32:30 Someone explain this to me, please. I've been trying to understand this for days and I can not.
How can one be left in doubt if 2 + 2 are really 4?
The object isn't to defeat atheism within your own mind. You will always be the winner of that debate. It is to refute atheism in the mind of the atheist. That is not a simple task.
@chasm or sar they don't want to believe even if you give evidence they will not believe unless God intervenes in their life they will not believe our aim is to tell them the gospel it is up to God whether they believe it or not.
people's do not believe in God for various reason but it really just rebellion they don't want someone telling them what to do also it would mean they are accountable to God for how they live their life. everything(but God) has a beginning nothing+nothing=nothing.no God no universe no earth no humans no plants no animals no space no light no planets nothing.
@@truthseekers1620 Of course that's true, but God is also the source of reason. It's okay to use rational arguments as well. It would be denying a part of God's divine essence to think otherwise.
@@chasmofsar2691Indeed - I realize this is old, but I'd say that a lie has limitless appeal. It can be literally anything you want it to be, and it will tell you anything you want to hear.
Now of course, lies fail - it's only a matter of where and when. Regarding these truths, the decieved holds hands symbiotically with the deception.
To separate from the lie is to die and be born again; an athiest will fight tooth and nail, as if their life depends on it, precisely because it does.
Faith changes everything, and challenges every lie that's ever worked together to build a non-believer. Redefinition through faith builds people up stronger than they ever could have been, but a godless person just sees their tiny worldly tower getting knocked down.
@@truthseekers1620but you Christians have given 0 evidence for God
@@chasmofsar2691prove that God exist
So I'm about 10 minutes in and it's seeming pretty off. I call myself an agnostic atheist, but under his definitions I'm neither an agnostic nor and atheist. I'm not absolutely certain whether any gods exist, but based on current evidence I don't believe any of the gods that have been described to me actually exist. I don't claim no gods exist. I don't claim we can't know anything, because there are some things I can be absolutely certain of, like the content of my thoughts, opinions, and preferences. I also think a god of classical theism would find it trivially easy to provide evidence for its existence, of the same quality and quantity for everything else I believe in. This is how pretty much every atheist I know or have heard of thinks, too, and so he is constructing arguments against a straw man.
And for all that he says don't just follow a script, the "do you know you don't know anything" script is something I've heard several times before, and it always falls flat.
There is a reason why we don't have apologists constantly creating philosophical arguments to reassure us of the existence of our pets, the country Australia, the pyramids of Giza, or the element Lithium. These things all have good evidence and their existence is therefore clear. No god meets the same evidentiary criteria; instead they all seem to fall into the same evidentiary category as mythological creatures, magic, and UFOs. And so I don't currently believe such claims.
I think it's important to realize that the target audience for this video is not for someone with your views. It's aimed at Christians who want to understand how to present their beliefs to others.
I would say the way God arranges His evidence is it begins as, at best, a 50/50. However, once a person makes the decision to follow Him, this changes until the moment... (have you heard this before? That God "reveals Himself" to someone) and then it is no longer 50/50 and can even be as high as 100%/0%.
The main thing is to realize (but NOT from this video) that there is enough evidence to warrant a thorough examination of what is out there. People whose profession is to examine tough questions, the best minds out there that are Nobel Laureates, are a massive majority of believers in God, with at least 68 or so % Christians and another 13% Jewish...and not casual believers but those willingly being quoted in their belief. If these sorts of minds are being convinced, then the rest of us need to examine the issue VERY closely.
It all depends upon if a person wants to spend eternity with God or not. God will not force anyone to join Him in the "next life."
@@billyholly Well, the target audience is people who want to challenge my view, and I explained why this sort of challenge won't work. In particular, these arguments and "evidence" skirt around my epistemology, always staying in the realm of likely imaginary things.
I understand that the easiest people to convert are desperate people looking for some emotional reassurance, who feel a need for social support. Church communities can definitely offer these things but this in fact has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of their religious claims. Any group of people can do the same, regardless of their particular beliefs.
Nor am I impressed by your appeal to Nobel laureates. You are appealing to experts in a particular field, to justify their beliefs about a different field outside of their expertise; this is a fallacious appeal to authority. Nobel laureates also tend to be elderly, and so are culturally much more likely to be religious. In fact the vast majority of scientists and philosophers are atheists, but again this has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of unscientific, unfalsifiable beliefs.
Would I want to marry a woman (for a marriage lasting decades) based on a book by anonymous authors, stating third-hand claims about her appearance, personality traits, or the very fact of her existence? Absolutely not. If these writing claimed she had magic powers, I would be even more dubious. How could I possibly want to spend an *eternity* with someone, then, based on the same poor evidence?
To determine if I like someone, or for them to coerce me into something through the force of their personality, at a minimum they first have to evidently exist. Right? Plenty of people in the bible are depicted as speaking with god, and then later reject him. He preserved their free will and yet can't talk to me without coercion, or does he probably not exist and these are stories, and there is no god for me to meet?
@@weirdwilliam8500 These are all thoughts worth examining. What if you select the most important. I would suggest those dealing with Jesus since without a resurrected Jesus, there is no reason for Christianity. What do you think? Should we take a look? One thought about the Nobel Laureates, my point there, ancient old or not, they are at their prime enough to win an award and they know how to examine evidence. I am not appealing to their authority. We take Stephen Hawking seriously, Bill Nye the Science Guy and several other well-known atheists and they are also outside their fields in their remarks.
Never mind on that. What do you think of my Jesus question? Unlike many other commenters, you actually seem to be seeking real answers and are not relying on repeating memes.
@@billyholly Hey Billy. Thanks for your reply. I agree this has been a good conversation, especially for a TH-cam comment section. :)
If we look at the evidence for Jesus, it doesn't rise above the common, established pattern of legendary development, urban legends, or exaggerating the truth to promote a religion. These are the sorts of human patterns we see in every other religion, tall tale, etc. The case for Christianity is especially weak since all of the gospels are anonymous and only Paul actually reports seeing a risen Jesus, although he never knew Jesus in life and he only reports seeing a light and hearing a voice. Many known mundane phenomena could explain his single experience.
Looking at the chronology of the four gospels, as accepted by the consensus of biblical scholars, we can see that each subsequent gospel includes more supernatural or miraculous details than the one before it. If we then look at the chronology of the other roughly 40 gospels that were not canonized in the bible, we see a continuing pattern of legendary development, with Jesus' head reaching into the clouds, a talking cross, disciples paralyzing people with a touch, and many more extreme claims. The original gospel of Mark had very little supernatural elements, and the modern ending where the women spread the news was also absent in its earliest manuscripts. Just people and an empty tomb.
If we plot this rate of increase in supernatural claims on a timeline by each gospel, and extrapolate the line backwards through decades of oral tradition and proselytizing to the time of Jesus' life, we arrive at zero miracles on the line. We arrive at the sort of mundane origin typical of every religion, which you as a Christian presumably believe is the case for every other religion.
There are no extra-biblical accounts of anything related to Jesus' supposed life, death or resurrection. There are extra-biblical accounts from decades later, where the accounts simply describe what Christians at that time believed. That early Christians were fervent in their beliefs is neither remarkable nor indicative of the truth or falsehood of their beliefs.
We have seen modern preachers as well as the writings of early Church fathers express that lying for the purpose of spreading their faith is acceptable. We have seen how a single claim from one person can spread and become exaggerated or embellished until it becomes a religion. Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard are the most recent examples.
We have countless examples of this myth progression, from religions, to the myth of the stolen 2020 election, to Elvis sightings, to tales of Paul Bunyan, King Arthur, Baba Yaga and many more. We have countless examples of people lying, exaggerating, or being mistaken. We have countless examples of bereavement delusions, which is a common phenomenon where people have delusions in which they see, hear, or feel people who have recently died who they had a strong emotional attachment to.
We have zero demonstrable or reliable examples of anyone actually rising from the dead.
For this reason, I place Christianity in the broadly known, mundane category of mythology, because that is much more likely than an entirely new and undemonstrated ontology, namely a supernatural suspension of physical laws.
Thanks for reading, if you read this far!
@@weirdwilliam8500 Hehe! Don't worry about the length. I actually DID make it through to the end.
However, it's better you look at the issue one step at a time or one may "lose the forest for the trees," with me mashing up that common saying. Can we take it one point at a time? Jesus? The Gospels aren't nor have ever been embellished. They have never been a game of "telephone." I can refer you to specific scholars on this, if you'd like. There are TONS of clips like: th-cam.com/video/-F_xRyi1yAs/w-d-xo.html
Memes repeat the telephone idea and others to discredit the accounts but they are simply not true. However, keep in mind, the Bible never saved anyone.
We DO have the ridiculous Gnostic Gospels from a couple hundred years later that should totally be rejected, perhaps a distraction strategy, pushed upon us by the "enemy."
In an oral tradition society with only a 10% literacy rate and paper costing a fortune, very few written records remain but more words had been written about Jesus than the reigning emperor of the time, like four times as many.
The preaching began in the city where Jesus was crucified, a poor choice if they were speaking lies as many witnesses lived right there and could have disagreed with what was being taught of Jesus...and not ONE contradiction from that time came out.
As for the hustlers like Smith, who worked as a conman in his younger days, expect the enemy to use such types to distract from the truth.
How can someone talk so much but say nothing
I was wondering the same thing: So many words, so little sense.
Mike Public if he was made of chocolate he'd eat himself
apologetics
Rationalizing an emotionally selected conclusion.
the power of faith
I am constantly surprised on how apologists are unable to understand the terms agnosticism and atheism.
First of all, agnostic atheism is not a mutually exclusive position.
I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that no gods exist. That makes ma agnostic.
I also happen to not believe a god exists. That makes me an atheist.
As long as you understand that one position is related to knowledge, and the other is related to belief, you got it. Pretty simple actually.
pandstar he’s not unable to understand. He’s unwilling to admit that he DOES.
Same thing with "knowledge" and "belief"
Before I became a born again Christian this is how I described myself, you’re right.
I didn’t believe, but I also understood that I could not know. Therefore I called myself an agnostic atheist. I would say that this Jeff guy is a little inaccurate with his descriptions of words and religion. He could steelman Atheism/Agnosticism’s position to refute it which would strengthen his point. Instead he strawmanned you guys. Keep searching for the truth my friend. God will reveal himself to you when you are ready. Trust me, I would read this a year ago and call myself crazy. But Christ is truth. 20 year Agnostic Atheist here. I literally wore a Moses costume for “Fictional Character Day” at school. Trust me I was a heathen 😂
@@AaronBornAgain I was a theist for decades. And despite being sincerely searching for god, said god never was revealed to me. I am still opened to being convinced, but I am also not holding my breath.
Well, Moses was actually a fictional character. The vast, VAST majority of scholars, historians, Near East experts, etc are convinced about this.
@@AaronBornAgain Moses costume 😂
How do you know?
"God says"
How do you know god says?
"The bible says god says"
Why would you trust the bible to be genuine revelation?
"I take it on faith." Or "It works for me" or "I was raised within the church"...
Point is, you don't have "God says so" as your epistemological ground floor.
I mean you'd have to refute confirmed prochecy, scientific discorvery, historical facts, testimonies, epistemology and ultimately objective truth given from God's Word... Scripture itself sets an unachievable standard of 100% accuracy in all truth and has met it everytime.. any human works without the Holy Spirit simply cannot produce a truthful worldview.
I'd say a spiritual person without God can be taken more seriously debating truth than an atheist.. an atheist literally has no basis for even existing.. naturalism is verifiably false.
@@sejason56
Nothing in what you just said made any sense at all.
There are few things uglier than a salesman inventing a conversation in order to persuade his mark that only idiots wouldn't buy his product.
your opinion, doesn't really matter in an atheistic worldview
@@gregferguson9647 that's the sort of remark that suggests you've given up on the whole "rational thought" thing
@@shinywarm6906 again. Your opinion really doesn't matter in a godless, judgement free worldview where nothing or no one ordains or sees anything. It's all just opinion and everything is subjective and relative. Don't attack my character, attack my argument. But you can't really do that so good luck. You have nothing to stand on.
@@gregferguson9647 "nothing or no-one ordains or sees anything". I guess that might seem true to you, provided you've no self-awareness or conscience, and have never heard of legislatures, state or civil authorities, courts of law, police, prisons, social media posts, or other people. All of these entities, individuals or agents could chose to take notice of my opinions and they could "matter" to all of them. You might define all this as "subjective" but that does not mean it "doesn't matter" (do you think the Nazis' "subjective opinions" didn't matter to the Jews or the Romany Gypsies? You might think without your god "it's all relative", but that doesn't stop it having an effect, or anyone judging or acting on that judgement
@@shinywarm6906 if we all turn to worm food at the end of the day your worldview, then there is no justice for rapists, murderers, slave owners, etc. The lives we live truly mean nothing. And I know you don't believe that.
I made it 4 minutes. That was when he said to think with the mind of Christ to defend Christ with apologetics... I can't take that position seriously, I'm sorry. To have your conclusion in your premises is circular reasoning, I don't know what else to say
I think it's good that you gave it a shot. However, by the title, I think you can guess that the target audience for this clip is not atheists or agnostics. I think it's aimed at Christians and how they might try to organize their thoughts when discussing God with non-believers. I can try to wade through some questions with you. I'm certainly no expert but I am pretty good at searching various sources for answers.
@@billyholly oh boy this was a while ago haha, I don't even remember what the video talked about anymore. But yeah something with that title can't possibly be geared towards the non-believer, unless it is written ironically. Still though, once in a while I like to hear what the other side of the table is talking about, you know?
All epistemological reasoning is circular. Keep studying.
"How Not To Completely Refute Atheists".....That's a better description of this video. You're welcome.
@Jason
Nope
I love YT comment sections, the 13 year old atheists come in with all the edge.
On a revelational epistemology, how does one know that the revelation isn't actually from Satan deceiving us trying to draw us away from God?
You wouldn't ask that question if you believed the Bible to be true. Since you do not believe it to be true, you can't make sense of nothing, including the question you just made.
You can ask any question you want if you believe the Bible to be true. You can always question the justification of already held beliefs.That YOU wouldn't ask such a question doesn't entail that no one would ask such a question.
Putting it plainly, your question clearly shows that you do not know the Bible, thus my response. Besides, your question also presupposes much many things, that without God, one cannot account for, such as logic and truth.
How do you KNOW that YHWH isn't the devil that Satan is reputed to be?
Believing the bible to be true does not MAKE it true, you utter fucking moron.
No, being agnostic does not mean "we can't know anything" it means we don't know if there is or is no higher being or god, because it is impossible to refute or prove.
It's not impossible to prove. Consider this:
All of us human beings, aside from a few exceptions here and there, have the same basic/main body parts [head, chest, arms, hands, legs, feet] and move and function the same way.
Genesis 1:26-27 "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Year after year, when babies are born, they pretty much always look, move, and function the same. Same with every other living, breathing life form on the planet.
If that's not proof that God, or a high being, is real, I don't know what is.
Because if you take intelligent design out of the picture entirely, there's no guarantee that nature would've come to exist and work like it does.
I am just speechless as to how ridiculous this is, I love a good religious debate but this guy is beyond rational thinking. He is slinging woo woo all over the place.....
Nice explanation
+ Wicked_Robb
Yeah... and people like him from each and every god-espousing religion/belief-system/way-of-life have lots and lots of unwilling-to-be-unbrainwashed followers who love to lap up all the crap.
@@yevodee4024 or maybe you just dont get it :)
+@@danielomitted1867
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I do get it. :-)
@@yevodee4024 just curious, what’s your worldview?
It baffles me how willing some people can be to tie themselves up into such logic pretzels that belief without good reason makes sense to them. This is my biggest issue with religion - otherwise sensible people believing in nonsense and feeling justified in doing so.
Oh the irony
@@ServingChrist where is the irony?
@@ServingChrist bro fr, I literally thought that was a Christian commenting at first, the irony is extremely strong.
Dude. There are 100+ logically valid & sound arguments for God recognized by mainstream academia. Type in *100 arguments for God* to see.
The only way anyone could claim there aren't any good reasons to believe in God are:
1. Complete ignorance
2. Scientism (the self-refuting philosophy that truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified, which cannot be scientifically verified ITSELF)
@howie b personally belief in God has nothing to do with wishful thinking no God no universe no humans man made religion God made man he has nothing to do with religion
I didn’t notice any evidence of a god in this video? So I’m confused as to how it refuted anything.
Please do tell me what you consider to me evidence ? I'm curious as to what your understanding of the concept of what god is and what would be evidence of that same god
I think that the point is that, the fact that you had the ability to type a comment on a video is evidence enough. The Bible says that mans wisdom is foolishness to God. If nothing matters than why do anything at all? Why do you exist? If there is no truth why even comment in the first place, if God doesn’t exist why try to defend any world veiw at all. The point is you prove that God exists for us.
@@a6m3reisen8 evidence is that which can be tested in the lab and demonstrated to be true. That is the only kind of evidence that matters when discussing existence
@@SwainsSaved nope I'm sorry but nobody is proving the existence of God and nobody is proving the existence of God the way you're talking about… What you're doing is engaging a copout.
Why do we exist? Your question assumes a reason but you haven't demonstrated that the needs to be one. I exist because my parents had sex at the right time. That's literally the only answer that actually matters in his demonstrable.
Who said there is no truth? And what you mean by truth? There are a lot of things that we can demonstrate our true… None of them require a God.
If God does exist why would I need a guide to exist in order to defend the worldview.
So many of your questions assume the necessity of God when you have not demonstrated that necessity nor demonstrated they got even exists.
Meanwhile it's much more logical that God is the invention of humans that were intelligent enough to ask questions about the world around them, but to England to answer those questions because of their lack of knowledge.
Your God is nothing more than a God of the gaps in those gaps are getting smaller every day
@@keithziegler8881 well I respect your response, but I disagree. I believe that God is love, and I also believe that love cannot be a result of complicated organic material forming out of nothing all on its own. Love is indeed complicated, but out of 6,000 years of recorded history, the nations that didn’t fall and become swallowed up by the earth were the ones which had a respect and reverence for right and wrong.
I know that the attributes of God are perfect love perfect justice and perfect righteousness. All things work together for the good of those who love him.
And with all do respect you cannot prove to me that God doesn’t exist, my God keeps promises and never changes, he is more faithful than any man.
If your going to prove the Bible wrong you have to read it first
As soon as you hear him define "Classical Atheist" you should realize that he isn't defining Atheist. If he was defining Atheist and not straw manning Atheist then why would he use the qualifier "classical"? What does his definition of "Classical Atheist" have to do with the definition of Atheist? If I redefine Atheist to mean Apple and agnostic to mean Green. Does that mean agnostic Atheist belief they are Green Apples? If my redefinition doesn't change what Atheist belief then why would you think his definitions accurately represents what Atheist belief? Why can't you address what Agnostic Atheist actually belief?
I don't know if a God or Gods exist and I lack a belief in a God or Gods. By his definition I can not be Agnostic or an Atheist. What am I?
That's his point. The dictionary definition of atheism changed from the classical(original) definition of "there is no god" to the contemporary "lack of belief in God(s)." He didn't change the definition, the dictionary purveyors did.
@@DieElect I feel like there is context in the video being over looked. I'm going to guess he uses his definition to define people into a position they don't hold and that is made apparent in his usage of the qualifier.... yea he just did that with agnostic and I'm not watching the rest of this again.
Do you think I think he changed they definition?? That's an absurd assumption.
@@DieElect the word atheist means "a"-"no" theist-"belief in god/gods"
Put it all together and you get "no belief in god/gods"
Not "belief that there is no god/gods"
Atheism by definition is the lack of this belief. Just like a square is a rectangle, but not necessarily the other way around, an atheist can hold a positive belief that no gods exist, but that doesn't mean all have to.
After listening / watching sermons and on the street videos from Jeff for a little over a year now I think I'm finally willing and ready to stop eating my neighbors.
Catholic Missionary: Tell Me, How has Catholicism changed tribal life?
Cannibal Chief: Ugh, Now we only eat'em Fishermen on Fridays! 😂🤣
Cannibal Tribe open up Hannibal's Bar and Grill. Specials:
Fridays during Lent: Fishermen & Chips
Saturdays: SWERF & TERF
Sunday Brunch: YECC's and FLERF's
lol so funny 😐
That's always the hardest sin to give up in the transition to Christianity.
@@lightbeforethetunnel 😂
Thanks for unintentionally illustrating the fact that theists are as fundamentally dishonest as their "arguments".
Yeah the sheer hubris of a atheist to make such a claim. You are just intellectual lazy and cowardly. There is never enough evidence for you because you have a emotional reason to deny. You honestly think yourself more clever or possessing some special insight that no one esle has. Majority of your own ATHEIST Arguments are UTTERLY DISHONEST. You alteady deny god so any evidence to the contray you are predisposed to disbelief. That not open mind thats just you being intellectual lazy. Such a pity you lack introspection and the ability to see how absurd and childish your own Atheist world view is.
@Bad Boys Boogie None are good, that´s the point. Believing the Bible does not make us good.
@Bad Boys Boogie what is "a good person"?
@Bad Boys Boogie on what basis that is "good" and since all beings must have a reason to motivate them, what is the reason for such way of life?
Thank you for posting this video.
I'm always looking for videos I can refer people to when they ask why I'm not a Christian.
*tips fedora*
No one asks you that. Stop lying. But here is a question for you: why are you watching videos like this on TH-cam?
Ah the old twist on the "problem of induction" a la Sye Ten Bruggencate.
Consider: when you question the validity of logic (the study of valid reasoning) what, then, are you using to question it?
In other words, what axioms must you accept to be absolute so that you may doubt that those same axioms are absolute?
Do you see the problem?
yes
32:30 Someone explain this to me, please. I've been trying to understand this for days and I can not.
How can one be left in doubt if 2 + 2 are really 4?
I think you're confusing agnosticism with solipsism.
I think most pop atheists _are_ borderline solipsists.
@@wesleycolemanmusic based on what?
@@corymoore8562 Based on my experiences talking with them online on Christian and Atheist channels and forums.
@@wesleycolemanmusic k
@@wesleycolemanmusic Nope. Atheists just believe in one god less than Christians.
Is it really so difficult to understand the definitions? Maybe this guy should really get an education before starting to talk.
Lay preachers with no formal education are the fucking worst.
Its his job to deliberately lie and misrepresent to suit his narrative. He knows exactly what he is going.
Of course you are afraid to go where the evidence leads because you have zero evidence. If you had any, you wouldn't be afraid to present it.
Refute what he said.
+Phal Redenferd Read my other comments. I have refuted what he said. Even this comment addresses one of his points. Haven't you listened to what he said? The method used by scientists and atheists is to go where the evidence leads. And he spoke against that.
NicolSD
You failed.
Phal Redenferd Please expand.
NicolSD
You didn't refute what he said.
The title alone proves he's unable to understand what atheism is.
Please explain
@@Jordancheddar Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It's not something that can be refuted.
@@gabehcuod7017 Well, it could be, if you could show a god exists. Which you can't.
There should be no "ism" on the end. To be an atheist is to simply not believe. So to refute that, you would have to prove that the atheist does believe. Even if you prove a god exists, doesn't mean people have to believe it.
We've proved the world to be spherical, yet some still believe it's flat.
@@jamesmkoenig Well put!
Where was the refutation? Still an atheist here. Nothing he said worked at all to refute atheism. Happy to discuss if someone wants. Has to be a civilized and respectful conversation.
Albert Camus and Friedrich Nietzsche very popular atheist philosophers both prove the absurdity of atheists and the logical conclusion of that world view. In short atheisms is self refuting, it proves its self pointless and absurd.
@@souzajustin19d No, they don’t.
@@souzajustin19d atheism is not being convinced any gods exist.
Theism is believing at least one god exists.
That’s it for both.
Doesn’t matter what some other philosophers said, considering they didn’t actually show atheism is absurd.
What is the logical conclusion of atheism?
How is it self refuting? How does it prove its pointless? Unless you are trying to do what Jeff does and make atheism more than what it actually is.?
@@therick363 what is the objective purpose of life?
@@souzajustin19d well how about you respond to what I said and asked first? Then I’ll be happy to answer your question. That’s kinda how conversations go.
It's ironic, and a little disappointing, how easy all of this is to refute, using his own words against themselves.
I could bet you cant. I do bet i can refute atheism and expose its falsity. But 1st i need to understand what atheist you claim to be.
Also i can promise you cannot and will not defend your atheism as atheism is indefensible. And because you cannot defend it, and you know you cant defend it, proves atheism is wrong. Since you know you cannot defend atheism, we all must ask and wonder why you actually still subscribe to a false ideology.
When your putting up a video that makes you feel all smart because you can finally say something to an atheist when he explains to you why your beliefs don't make any sense, you should probably make sure that you don't tell us in the title that you don't even know the definition of atheism. I doubt anything worthwhile is in this video.
Says he knows things because "God said so". Proceeds to give zero evidence that any god said anything. Be better.
So the pre-Christian Greco-Roman civilization (lacking Jesus) still managed to master Literature, Sculpture (Art) and Engineering (Mathematics). How did they do this without Jesus?
Well being created by God to have the capacity to do so seems to be a logical answer....im confused that you would ask that. Youre asking why would people who dont believe in Jesus be able to do things people are capable of doing? Why can a toddler speak a sentence?.... because it was made with that capacity.
Do you know one important use of "uniformity in nature?" Being able to tell the age the of universe and of the planet.
13.4 Billion Years, maam/sir.
@@honkyjesuseternal
The age of the universe is only a theory, one that has changed many, many times throughout history.
@@rickdavis2235 Nope it is 14 billion years about, friend. Sorry you don't trust science. Yet you trust a book that was written by people who could barely read and write 2K years ago? Not good, friend. Think better.
@@honkyjesuseternal what about the age of the universe, no one cares
@@apracity7672 If you are Qanon or a conservative, yes. Then facts and science have no place in your life.
A link to this video should be in the dictionary next to "strawman"
Why is straw man wrong in your worldview?
@@wallchart111 I can see where this is going...
3yrs and still no reply lol
a debate with Aron Re. would be good
Bro...I know. When I first found this neckbeard I was really hoping Aron or Matt Dillahunty had already gotten ahold of him. But then I realized people this articulate who intentionally mischaracterize arguments to this degree are also smart enough not to take public debates with trained killers like Aron & Matt.
Aron Ra is an idiot and very bias. I would have disagree with you on that.
A speech of more than one hour and still I didn't hear a consistent argument against atheism, you can't prove what doesn't exist and a book isn't a proof of anything, neither is your opinion or your feelings. Nevertheless I love Jeff's speeches with JW and mormons.
I can try to summarize it to the best of my ability, atheism had no basis to expect that the world is consistent, rational, or moral if there is no god. There has to be something supernatural holding the universe together for the world to react in a consistent and repeating way otherwise there is no justification for saying that it will be. There is no justification for universal morality if there is no god because there is no higher authority to give you it it’s only what you subscribe to. Ultimately the world does not make sense without God and scripture has accurately described what we see all over the world.
But that is secondary to the revelation that Christ. Deep down you know that humanity is fundamentally evil because why else do we see people sink into selfishness and degenerate ways when barriers are eliminated. Christ is the solution to our evil problem because He died for you and I’s sin so that we are now capable of fighting the sinful ways. God is good, and we are so incapable of knowing anything in absolutes except what he has revealed.
The goal post shifts because of how YOU want to define it.
Oh the irony.
O of course. Atheists don't have any true morals, nor can they even clearly define anything, so when a Christian questions you atheists about your morality you can not even understand your own views.
Read the book yet?
Before trying your hand at godawful apologetics, maybe first try NOT to misrepresent the concept this ENTIRE hour-plus video is about...?
Right off the start of your video (around the 7-minute mark) you say agnostics believe you can't know anything, that is not true. As you pointed out agnosticism is a claim of knowledge with the Greek prefix meaning "to doubt." Agnostics claim: "that since we can never know if there is a god I choose to take the default position and not believe in
one." I do agree with you that there has been a clash of ideas when it comes to agnosticism and atheism; however, I do believe that most atheist today are agnostic-atheist meaning. Since they don't know god exists--because agnosticism is a claim to knowledge--they choose not to believe in a god. Finally, when it comes to agnosticism they do not claim that nothing can be known for sure, but simply that the existence of god cannot be known.
You continue to say that god has revealed himself through revelation to everyone, thus we all know there is a
god. However, I would like to point out that just because you say something does not mean it is true. While you believe god has revealed himself to everyone, you don't actually know. For example, if someone tells you that they went to the store to get you ice cream. You trust that they are going to actually go and get you ice cream; however, you don't know 100% for sure if they're actually going to do it until they return back with your ice cream. Therefore, while they are gone you can't simply say "they're going to get me ice cream," because while they did tell you that you can't say absolutely that that is what they are doing--unless you're tracking them.
Later on, you claim that you things with certainty because god told you so. You then try to prove this with what is said in the bible. You use the bible to prove your claim that god's word is the basis for certaincy; however, you only know god's word is the basis of certainty because the bible tells you so. Do you see how that doesn't make sense? What you did is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. At some point, you have to admit that you make an assumption--me personally I don't care where you make it. However, you have to be willing to accept the fact that you made an assumption because you cannot use the bible to prove the bible is right.
Lastly, since I want to keep this short, I also want to touch on morality from a more atheistic perspective. While there is a lot more to this subject, there are a few major ideas I want to touch on. To begin, you have created this false dichotomy saying that if you believe in objective morality you have to believe in some god and if you believe in subject morality you do not believe in a god. However, this is not true there are some atheists who do believe in objective morailty. For example, Sam Harris he recently published a book about how objective morality can be explained through evolution and science.
I do realize that may not be sufficient enough for you since you've already made up your mind on what an atheist most believe. Thus, I will try to show you how even with subjective morality we can still arrive at objective morals. In your video (I only made it in 20 minutes sorry) you claim that an atheist cannot say that it is an absolute moral obligation to not eat humans. Again, while there are some atheists who do believe in objective morality, they may answer yes. However, for those you don't, they could answer both ways and here's why. At the basis of everyone's moral system, there is some assumption, for christians, it is "God's word is true." By having this assumption you are then able to form objectives truths that agree with that. For me, the basis of my morals lies at the assumption that "the preservation and prosperity of human life is a good thing." While I may not know why it is a good thing, as long as I acknowledge that assumption I am able to form objective truths from it. In the same way, reasoning is subjective so is morality. In spite of trying to prove morality is subjective, I hope I have cleared up how an atheist can still--in some way--have objective morals, by having an underlining base assumption.
I also forgot to mention the false dichotomy you place between theism and evolution, they are not mutually exclusive like most evangelical Christians like to think.
I can most certainly say you lost every single person on this thread when you said circular reasoning. Two groups of people are king at circular reasoning Athiest and Mormons. Both hold true to liberal ideology. Both are completely false. I left both based solely on circular reasoning because it is my ultimate pet peeve. Be what ever you want but you can't be a hypocrite my guy. That was foolish
When you tell someone you believe that 13.8 billion years ago the luckiest thing you can ever imagine happened then 4.6 billion years ago another miracle happened then 4.5 billion years ago something else happened that almost destroyed earth then 4 billion years water randomly popped on earth then 3.8 billion years a bunch of molecules formed by a bunch of hot pots that made a chemical reaction under the water. You realize how dumb that sounds. God doesn't exist but all this took place billions of years ago but hasn't died off. No life on Mars but on earth a marine happened a billion years ago 😂
The Christian "boat" doesn't take water because it's not even IN the water. If it was, it would sink like a rock.
Morality is a product of society, not religion. This is demonstrated by society deciding that slavery is immoral and not religion. If you really read your bible, you'll not that slavery is endorsed by it.
If you believe that…if your society says rape is permissible would you be in agreement?
@@nextlevelmartialarts At one time slavery was acceptable in the US. Society abolished slavery demonstrating my point. Don't draw me into this hypothetical strawman of a point.
This is not a refutation of atheism, it is a sermon, and a perfect example of why apologetics are only convincing to those who already believe. Christians, please, in the same way that you wouldn't go to a Buddhist to learn what Muslims believe, don't go to your pastor or favorite apologist to learn what atheists believe.
As a Christian that is a great analogy lol
Please, there’s no honesty or integrity in Christian apologetics! Its truth seeking with an agenda Other than seeking truth, which means it isn’t truly truth seeking.
I used to be an Atheist. Then I became an Agnostic. Then God pulled me out of my life and revealed himself to me. The saddest part is that when I share my testimony, people don’t believe it’s possible for them. God promises us that he will reveal himself to those who seek him with all their heart mind and soul.
“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the Lord, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.”
Jeremiah 29:11-14 ESV
bible.com/bible/59/jer.29.12-14.ESV
Then I started reading and was not longer blinded. The Bible spoke the truth. The living word of God. I used to criticize but hardly read, or I read with judgement and out of context. Seek him and you’ll find the truth but we don’t because we love our sin.
I know what atheists believe because I was one and I can testify to many refutable things Pastor Jeff says because that was me. I said all those things. I believe all those things. The roots are, we are at enmity with God because he is holy and we are yet sinners but Christ died for us to be forgiven. A FREE gift of eternity. Repent and trust in Jesus. It’s as simple as that, but people would rather eat their sin and enjoy the rotting pleasures of this world than have the blessings and gifts of everlasting life.
It breaks my heart.
"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it." Billy Madison the movie.
That’s like saying that an apple is a representation of the “universal truth of red” numbers are just adjectives with which we describe reality, and the fact that something is abstract doesn’t mean that it’s mystical
Yeah but red is subjective. Numbers are not subjective. If you had 2 apples, a colorblind man would still see 2 apples. There is no number blindness.
48:28 "If we, as Christians, stand on the Revelation of God, and we get attacked by the unbeliever or challenged by the unbeliever; if we stand off of our Christian commitment and begin to behave like the unbeliever or reason like the unbeliever, if we adopt their perspective, if we pretend neutrality with them, then we'll be like them. We're gonna go where they're going. (...) if we pretend neutrality, we say "maybe Jesus Christ isn't who he claims to be," "maybe the word of God isn't what it claims to be,"
"maybe there is no God," "LET'S SEE WHERE THE EVIDENCE TAKES US." If we behave in that way, reason in that way, we lose the entire basis of knowledge, first and foremost, BUT WERE GONNA END UP REASONING LIKE THE UNBELIEVER."
Durbin doesn't want you to reason like an unbeliever; he doesn't want you to go where the evidence takes you. That's what he just said in a very round-about way: going where the evidence leads is dangerous because there is no evidence for any god.
NicolSD no, he doesnt want you to say for example "maybe God doesnt exist" i dont agree with such claim, i however, after analyzing archeological, forensic, biological & astronomical evidence i have become an evidential apologist, as a genetics & evolutionary biology major, i find that the evidence for The existance of God is overwhelming, after you grant that, you gotta see what each religion preaches and see if any makes sense, if any is evidentially true, and honestly, christianity is.
Forensic analysis lf the gospels (by atheists) prove that they are reliable eye witness accounts, archelogical discoveries have turned atheists arguments like "But the bible talks of non existant cities and nations!!" into christian apologist argument like "the bible has proved itself to be historically and archeologically accurate"
Through physics, we can conclude that nothing can come from nothing, nothing is uncaused, yet atheist must accept an uncaused universe, which is nonesense. I highly respect stephen hawkins, but he makes the claim that the universe came into being through a singularity (which is scientific jargon for "physics dont apply here, idk"), yet never adresses the point of where the singularity comes from, and if he did, he would have to account for where the cause of the cause came from, and like that an infinite regression which is a logical fallacy.
As a rational human, i'd say that if i were to find the most detailed instructions to how to build a space shuttle engraved in a rock, i'd not say "oh, through random chance, rain, wind, etc. This pattern appeared" because any complex coded information required just that, a code, which is an artificial pattern that cannot come from nature, yet we assign similar origins to life, with DNA for example.
Also, christinity rests on the death and resurrection, which cannot be accounted logicially, except for the christian account (mind you, that people gained nothing from said revelations, they lost their jobs, status, relationships, etc. And became homless, persecutef everywhere, tortured, stoned, killed in the most horrendous and painful ways *for a lie they themselves fabricated?* )
Strawman fallacy at 7:00. Misrepresentation of agnosticism. Agnosticism just means knowledge of gods is not possible.
I'm new to Apologia Studios. I've watched about five or six videos this past week and I really like what I see/hear. I really appreciate the respectful approach towards evangelism in the spirit of 2 Tim. 2:24-25: "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth."
I've engaged atheists on the internet for over 20 years. In the beginning, due to their often aggressive and arrogant approach (not all do this), I was very intimidated. But after a while you begin to see patterns in their arguments, and you find out that they usually approach the issue of God and religion the same way. Once I saw the logical flaws in their arguments, the attempts on their part to intimidate vanished away. I knew they were more bark than bite.
So be encouraged, Christian. Our faith has many valid proofs. God has not asked us to walk blindly. Look beyond any shallow criticism or mocking to the substance of the message and you'll lose your fear and be able to logically refute their arguments.
To the atheist, let me just say that it's important for you to understand a very fundamental fact: truth is truth whether you believe it or not. Truth is truth if no one believes it. It stands on its own and doesn't need support. So many of you imagine that unless YOU are convinced by the presented evidence it's not really evidence. Putting aside the arrogance of such a position, it's simply not logical. Again, if something is true it's true whether you believe it or not. So you can't logically and emphatically say, "There is no evidence for God!" All you can say is that you don't find the evidence compelling. Such a statement would be more in line with the truth. We then encourage you to keep your mind open and really examine the evidence thoroughly. Ask yourself (if you're really interested in finding the truth), "Am I missing something?" If you honestly seek, you will find the truth.
Saying that truth is truth whether we believe it or not (meaning truth is objective not subjective) is pointless to say. Atheists do not deny that there is objective truth - they just recognize that people believe according to their subjective idea of it, and that one can't just decree his subjective evaluation as objective. I can say atheism is true whether you believe it or not just as easily as you can say Christianity is true whether I believe it or not.
The following videos are true whether you believe them or not ;)
Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions):
th-cam.com/video/RB3g6mXLEKk/w-d-xo.html
Jephthah (Judges 11):
th-cam.com/video/Pt66kbYmXXk/w-d-xo.html
Perfect Double Standard:
th-cam.com/video/ZyFM0_AhIYA/w-d-xo.html
The Internet: Where religions come to die
th-cam.com/video/0Rqw4krMOug/w-d-xo.html
The Burden of Proof:
th-cam.com/video/KayBys8gaJY/w-d-xo.html
@@ErikLiberty Oh, sure! Anyone can claim something is truth, and it’s usually derived from their subjective perspective.
So how do we know if they are right or wrong? We lay that claim next to objective truth and see if it measures up, and we embrace or reject accordingly.
The general conclusion you came to is true: we all use our subjective bias to interpret objective truth. But that begs the question: can objective truth therefore even be fully known if no one fully represents it? It wouldn’t seem so if I am understanding what you’re saying.
However, I believe it exists beyond anyone’s bias and can be known. I believe it’s Christianity (whether I can fairly represent it or not). I know you disagree.
So then I ask you, since you acknowledged objective truth, where is it, and how do you KNOW it’s true?
@@ErikLiberty You're right. (Although, there are plenty of people who do not believe in objective truth, so it's not pointless to state.)
So, question: where is this objective truth and, if we are all biased, how can we truly recognize it?
You are correct. Truth is truth, or more accurately, reality is reality, regardless our thoughts opinions knowledge acceptance of it. But it also doesn’t do anyone any good if it is not recognized. And for claiming something as truth does not make it truth. Proclaiming the reality of a God does not make God a reality. Quoting a Bible verse that says I actually do know the true God does not do anything to support the claim.
So while reality is reality irrespective how our synapses fire, we are the ones trying to figure out which understanding of reality is correct so that we can do life on this space rock together. So what am I missing?
@@mrhyde7600 Thanks for your comments. I guess the real question is, “What is the process by which we recognize reality?” And doesn’t that process need to be universal and standard for all, and doesn’t the reality need to be embraced NO MATTER when it is?
Arguments for god seem to become more and more convoluted and circular
It’s a consequence of the nature of their gods being pushed farther and farther out of the realm of the real and into meaninglessness.
Apologetics: how to make the evidence fit your belief rather than make your belief fit the evidence. Got it.
Respectfully that’s false… Every Apologetic that I have ever watched(at least) believes in God because of intelligent design that’s some of their main arguments… and that’s self contradicting for you to say that because a lot of atheists claim Religious people plug in “God” for hard to understand things that happen
@@Mojojojo335 of course I’m being hyperbolic but I don’t really understand your point. You’re saying people believe in God because of ID? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of an atheist or agnostic becoming a theist because of ID. It’s almost always someone trying to explain their belief in God in the face of biblical (just an example) contradictions with scientific theories like Evolution.
@@rethinking_reality no that’s not the only reason but that’s one of there main arguments to how they believe we are not here without some sort of god higher power…. Most Atheists don’t want God to exist(from my experience) …. I’m not a super strong Faith Christian I have a lot of nihilist views lol but it’s self defeating I asked my atheist friends and people online if god was proven to be true would you follow him and every single one of them said NO or either they hesitated
@@Mojojojo335 No sir, stop. It has nothing to do with wanting a god to exist. It’s about whether or not there is a justified rational reason to conclude one does. But choosing not to follow one has nothing to do with the desire for there to be one, it just means that they recognize that the God described in the Bible is morally a piece of shit, and following a moral piece of shit would violate their own moral standards. Me, I would sell out in a heartbeat, I’m not going to hell if there is a God, so allow me to be the first atheist to say screw that noise, I will throw my morality right out the window, all the while knowing I’m a better person than that God.
Same thing could be said about science 🤷🏽♂️
How can you argue with an Atheist when you clearly do not know what an Atheist is?
refuting atheism? havent even started watching this but i already know it will be pure comedy. im prepared to laugh so this better not dissapoint
then it means you have bias
@@ManlyServant he’s not wrong-he does word salad and try’s to change little things here and there to help himself.
Atheism-the lack of belief in a god or gods.
Or not being convinced there are any gods. That’s it.
@@guyjosephs5654 this is also a belief 🤔 kind of like I believe that a man cannot be a woman and vice versa 💁🏽♂️
@@samanoski4 and the point I was making was that how does this apologist think he can refute atheism if he doesn’t understand the basics of the topic?
Do you feel he refuted atheism?
Some have the view/position of belief. Many don’t.
That is because Jeff Durbin is an F Level apologist
It's always wise to first understand what you are talking about.
It doesn't seem very sensible to provide a group of people with incorrect information.
And this gentleman has no idea what atheism means.
And that is unfortunate because many Christians look at this and use this in a conversation with an atheist, and many atheists will not recognize themselves in this description of atheism.
'The atheist' and 'The Christian' simply do not exist, they can not easily be defined.
An Atheist doesn't deny the existence of a god, but an atheist is not so sure if there is a god at all.
That is a considerable difference!
Atheism is certainly not a 'denial' of the existence of a god.
To deny something that exists without a doubt and that something determines what happens with you after you die is not very logical.
If the Christian claims that there is a god, then the Christian will have to prove it.
The same applies to the atheist who claims that there is no god.
An atheist may use false arguments for his / her unbelief, but that doesn't mean that there is a god.
And that also applies to the Christian.
Accepting good or bad arguments that reinforce your beliefs is personal.
There are so many factors that determine how someone deals with logic.
It's also very frustrating for both atheists and Christians when someone paints a false picture of what an atheist or Christian is
or isn't, believes or doesn't believe.
And when there's also a lot of ego and ridiculization involved then the irritation limit is reached quickly.
That's never a good foundation for an honest discussion.
I'm not talking about making jokes during a discussion, which can help keep a discussion light.
-- yeah, no. You saying what you think Dawkins said then claiming Dawkins said it is more of the same kind of dreck in this video.
5:34 to skip past the initial bee ess where he starts talking about atheism, and quickly defines atheism as an assertion that gods don't exist and agnosticism as "we can't know anything (~ 7:10 )". Formally, atheism is just the lack of belief in gods, even though many atheists also declare that none of the popular gods exist. He might be forgiven for defining incorrectly for that reason.
But the second is an even more absurd strawman. Agnosticism is not an assertion that nothing can be known, nor is it even an assertion that nothing can be known about gods, it's simply the opposite of gnosticism, which is an assertion of knowledge of gods. It's the same as saying "I don't know anything about any gods".
I have to conclude the rest of this is equally moronic - just sheep baying to eachother for over an hour.
Wait, you are an atheist, so there are no absolutes, but you are being absolute with your assertions!
I GET IT,
THE ATHEIST HAS NOTHING TO SAY.
Atheism is the active assertion that there is no higher power, also known as naturalism. Agnosticism is the active assertion that it's impossible to know whether or not a higher power exists.
your problem is how do you know anything for certain with your inductive epistemology.
YOU CAN'T!
I was a Christian, then I used my brain and began questioning and being skeptical with critical thinking. Now im an atheist and not ashamed.
Hahahahahahaha, so you used your brain and made yourself dumber, instead of having someone else dumb you down. Yea good strategy.
@@adriansoto239 So you are saying that thinking for yourself is a bad thing?
@@commandergree6131 yes, sometimes it is. Why? Are you implying that always thinking for yourself is a good thing?...
@@adriansoto239 I’m just saying that’s pretty authoritarian is all, your comment also implied that not blindly following a religion was dumb. Just saying when people don’t think for themselves and just go along and don’t question things rights get trampled and people get hurt for no reason,
@@commandergree6131 and where did you come up with this strange idea that people are blindly following a religion?
Are u blindly following atheism?
Logical and Consistent, and testable - his argument to this is saying a "a child molester might say this is good".
Morals are a combination of social and empathetic norms among a group of human beings that generally result in the best behavior for the group survival, as such I won't deny the benefits Christianity had on my early life in my personal development of morals or it's place in history, but like santa clause and my fear of getting coal in my stocking you eventually need to stand on your own two feet and take responsibility for your decisions.
Regardless this not in any way proof of gods existence, in fact it's more proof of the damage continual believe in these things can cause, whether it's the fact that you believe god is required to tell you that child molesting is wrong to understand what is good or not, or whether it's a man blowing himself up to get 40 virgins because his god said it was ok, it makes you believe you aren't responsible for your own decisions when you are responsible for every action you take on this planet.
all that said I still see no proof or argument to coincide with a refute to an atheist that requires "Logical, consistent an testable" proof.
let me refute your argument with some of my own and I'll word it to any religion out their not just catholic.
what proof do you have that your scripture is real? can you proof a single word in that scripture is authentic to the source it is supposed to be given from? even if you trace it's origins back to a person/persons and can proof that person/persons existence, can you provide proof in any way that the scripture is legitimately from a god/gods and not penned in a back wood as a means to gain social status/power or some other benefit.
since I suspect you can't can you provide proof of any part of your religion without said scripture, what leg do you stand on after that...let's be honest here this video is not about refuting atheists because you can't do that, it's about the fact that you believe religion is helping this world, and while it has some advantages nothing in the history of this world has caused more death, genocides, subjugations, suffering, and pain as religion has caused to the human race over history.
I will end on this note, you claim agnostics an atheists are the same thing, I will claim my view point because if I had to decide between the two I would identify as agnostic, I believe in the possibility of a creator but no religion to date can explain reality in the detail that needs to be done. as for organized religion that's a farce that I will never subscribe to again faith and religion are separate, the bible preaches peace and unity, the catholic church covers up child rapes, where was your epistemology when the pope was covering that up?
Cope and seethe. Nobody reads your wall of text with zero arguments
@@Pikee I read it. The last bit, the pope is a no no.
His epistemology would be that it's wrong to molest children because we all made in the image of God with intrinsic value, and harming other people is against God's nature. In your worldview, who says that molestation is really wrong? You? Society? If we are all just atoms bumping into one another and chemical reactions in our brain, maybe the chemicals in some peoples brain makes them think molestation is okay. Who's to say they are objectively wrong. If there is no God, no standard outside of human beings, how can one chemical tell another chemical what they "ought" to do. You can't tell me what to do, why are your chemical reactions in your brain superior over my chemical reactions. But if God created the universe, he has the right to tell me what to do and I am obligated to obey his rules, but im not obligated to obey yours, why don't you obey my rules, and do what my chemical reactions think are good.
Actually no matter what you say you can’t refute beliefs. Beliefs are not a choice but something that happens.
24:44 Show me art that was actually created by a god and not just by your mdma fried brain. Without just handwaving the earth as said art.
If you have NetFlix there is a movie called, "Is Genesis History?" It is very good and they ask good questions. It may also be on TH-cam. They use scientific data and they analyze many questions. I watched it and in my opinion it proves with hard factual evidence that God exists. I hope it can help others believe too. Have a good day everybody!
I've actually seen most of that and it's full of fallacies and unfactual claims
the answer is no. you must be completely scientifically illiterate to think it proves god.
@@darkeen42 God, you people are annoying as hell. WHERE? Please point out ONE FALLACIOUS CLAIM!
@@TheSpacePlaceYT well first of all agnostics never say we can now anyting. Agnostic just means they're not super certain there is no God they don't even think it's not possible to know they just admit they don't know. So he talks about the definition of agnostic for 15 minutes and he doesn't know where the definition of agnostic mean that's the first issue
@@TheSpacePlaceYT yeah whenever somebody sends half of their time telling you what their opposition believes you should ignore them and just listen to what the opposition actually says.
The first idea is a giant straw man. Agnosticism doesn’t say knowledge in general is impossible. It says knowledge about certain things(god for example) is not available at the moment.
It's so simple, isn't it?? Yet people just fall all over the words coming from this guy's mouth. They are the epitome of "sheeple".
Right? Just provide the same evidence for a god as for all the other things we believe exist, and we'll believe the god exists. There is nothing impossible about that if the god does in fact exist. The ball is in the theists' court.
"Islam copies Christianity" ah yes because Christianity was the first religion, not like it directly takes from Judaism and incorporates many elements of other religions far older than it. Perhaps try reading more than 1 book.
Do we want to point out all the things Christianity has stolen from other religions?
Where do we start? The date of Christmas? All the other dates? The first half of the entire Bible (ok, that one is kind of unfair)? If we try to point out all of them we would still be here, when the universe ends...
I came here expecting you to lie and misunderstand, and I was not disappointed.
It's difficult to continue watching after he mangles his definitions within the first 7 minutes. To clarify:
Agnostic = without knowledge ( e.g. 'I don't know'). NOT 'I can't know.'
Athiesm = without belief in god (e.g. 'I don't believe in god') NOT 'there is not god'
Dear someone at Apologia Studios,
Please answer the following:
1. Yes or no, do you exist?
If no, then how do you justify the claim that you do not exist?
2. Yes or no, are you certain that you exist?
If no, are you saying that it is possible you do not exist? Please justify that!
3. If you have answered _Yes_ to 1. And 2., and are a proponent of the Presuppositional Worldview, you are now making a knowledge claim that:
(A) You exist. As well as,
(B) The only way you can have knowledge, is to know everything. Meaning: - Being God or to have things revealed to us by One that knows everything.
If yes, please justify the knowledge claim that you exist using your presuppositional worldview on how knowledge is gained.
4. If you counter is to say, _“God has revealed to me that I exist; and the fact that I exist allowed me to receive and retain that knowledge,”_ then please answer: Yes or no, would you agree that _if_ the absolute truth or validity of your claim (B) depends on your presuppositional claim/epistemology (A), then, would you not have to have absolute knowledge of (A) to be certain that (B) is true?
If no, please justify that!
5. Yes or no, would you agree that in order to have something revealed to you, you must exist in order to be able to receive it?
If no, then how do you justify how God can reveal things to people who don’t exist?
yYM
As soon as he referenced Sye Ten Brugenncate, I knew this was going to be nonsense. I was right. This whole thing was just embarrassing.
@Jason enjoy ignorance
The ability to dismiss an idea that makes everything you believe in fall apart.....
Makes your worse than an ignorant fool
@Jason why enjoy hell??
@@Zederzzz weird bit of projection there but okay dude.
@@davidlegkodukh6969 uhm, no. It's the ability to dismiss an idea that makes everything that someone else is telling you you believe, fall apart. I don't believe what this idiot claimed in this video, just because I'm an atheist. He misrepresented atheism, and much of the science, and told people what they know and don't know.
It is amazing how much these pastors can talk without saying anything.
i wonder if he realises refuting something that god invented is a ticket to the hot place, if god made me atheist he did it for a reason :)
Aw did ur feelings get hurt?
Micaela Grant Yeah. We weep for the broken brains of the people who believe this charlatan has any idea what he’s talking about.
@@DeaconShadow and I weep and pray for the broken souls who don't believe....
Micaela Grant It’s your time to waste. Seems that there are a million better things to do with your life than be concerned with the fact that other people don’t share your delusions.
The title should be "How to be stupid and make money by making others stupid"
How to be saved and be right with God for eternal life!
1-Admit you’re a sinner and be willing to turn from your sins towards God.
2-Believe onto Jesus Christ,who being the Son of God, died on the cross,
was buried and resurrected for the forgiveness of our sins as a free gift.
3-Confess onto God, asking to be saved accepting this free gift of salvation,
to start a new life being born again after being saved from your sins.
Scripture links below.
The romans road to salvation.
1.Romans 3:10, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"
2.Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
3.Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
4.Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for all that have sinned:"
5.Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
6.Romans 10:9, “That is thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
7.Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
More scripture.
John 3:16-17
16."For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
17.”For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
Romans 5:8-9
8."But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9."Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."
Corinthians 15:1-4,
1."Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2."By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.”
3."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;”
4."And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”
copy paste copy paste
@@SNORKYMEDIA Just because the message is Copy+pasted, does not make the message any less true. Without accepting the free gift of salvation, you will be judged by God for all your sins (being all wickedness you have ever done or thought), which leads to the rightful judgement of God onto your soul ,which is casting your soul (which can not die) into a lake of fire to burn forever.Thankfully this is easy to avoid, not through the cancer that is organized religion, but through accepting the free gift of salvation God has provided to us (by our own free will,seeing as God will not force his will onto you, even to your own detriment of being judged for your sins), that is simply that Jesus Christ (God manifest in the flesh), paid the full price for all your sins through his death,burial than resurrection as a free gift to whosoever asks God to be forgiven through it (by apologizing for your sins and asking God to forgive you through accepting this gift, while you are alive) with there being no other steps needed to be forgiven of your sins and given eternal life (which can not be lost).Of course it is your own choice to do so (or not to do so), and even if you do not make that choice now, if you do ever change your mind and want to get saved (wile you are alive anyways), God can + will forgive you of all your sins should you come to him at any point you are alive (seeing as God wants everyone to be saved).
The romans road to salvation. (The scripture from God's only perfect word, the King James Bible, on the steps to getting saved, if you are curious)
1.Romans 3:10, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"
2.Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
3.Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
4.Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for all that have sinned:"
5.Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
6.Romans 10:9, “That is thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
7.Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
I hadn’t realize others were present to witness Moses conversation with deity. Or any who were present to give an account of Abraham’s encounters. Interesting to say the least.
Yo be quiet we're trying to listen to the adult in the room
There were a total of 4 persons at each of those meetings you mentioned.
@@adamfoster6313 That is also allegedly, same with the 500 people who witnessed Christ, in one testimonial, yet I find it is often cited like they have 500 accounts of Jesus when they really only have a few if even that.
Yeah really weird then how Moses predicted the Messiah thousands of years after himself. Must be a coincidence, right buddy?
I mean Abraham’s encounters were written by Moses, which is quite literally an account of those encounters, but yeah
“Your personal experience doesn’t tell us what’s actually true” Does this hipster wannabe ever think before he talks?
So how do you completely refute the fact that I do not believe in any sort of deity? Try leaving your straw man and home and bring honesty and evidence to the table. Just sayin'
If I commit myself to turning off TH-cam I can’t learn from this video 🥲
"God's word" what about God's inaction? Astounding suffering all over the world.
Fucking cringe. So cringe. No one cares about you anymore, your just another crossarmed dumb atheist
@@ToyotaNutjob Not at all an atheist. That's the problem. And your comment, not so christian.
Amazing bible teaching as always xx
Why on earth would US decent people believe ANYTHING in the bible?
Isnt it only fit to wipe my arse?
No answer ehhh ellie? Thats why decent men dont want to sleep with you. Clearly you're as thick as a whale omelette!
He lies through his teeth so yes perfect buybull teaching
@@gowdsake7103 that's sad you feel that way
@@jakebarnes3054 Why ? because your too indoctrinated to see truth ?
12:30 "because God says so"... Did he just argue that? 🤭
15:48 "you want proof? Let's go to the Bible, Proverbs one verse 7"
This just keeps getting better and better
A wise man said, circa year 1000, immortalized as Psalm 14:1: The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Once you study and understand material biology, it becomes increasingly difficult to build philosophical foundations on immaterial constructs based on centuries of flawed materialism. If you possess objectivity, have a read of 'In Six Days
' Why 50 Scientists choose to Believe in Creation.
@@BrendanLightfoot Circa 1,000BCE David might have said "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God", but even if he had it's not evidence for a God
If anything it's much easier to establish axioms with materialism to use as philosophical foundations; we're all made of matter and our experiences are an interaction of that matter; consciousness; our consciousnesses like to be happy so we should organize ourselves in a way that maximizes this; morality
"In Six Days" has no new arguments
@@Zederzzz I'm sorry you feel that way. You may be used to arguing with well intended, if occasionally annoying Christians, but at their core, they want you to come out the other side of death in a better place. One cannot be reasoned or cajoled into the correct, Christ-centric spiritual position. Each conversion is a miracle and sadly, most of us are far too proud to ever get there. We call it having a burden for the lost, as we know what comes after death, and don't want that for you.
@@BrendanLightfoot please don't feel too sorry for us Brendan, but thank you for the concern :)
"The road to hell is often paved with good intentions" - but unfortunately intentions are not proof for the intended thing, as much as they are appreciated
It's interesting you say no one can be reasoned into believing, and each conversion is a miracle; is that openly saying reason and evidence are not the most important thing to Christ-centrism?
God could come down, walk among them, talk to them, heal them, etc. And Atheists would still disbelieve. How do I know this? Because He already did.
Nick Jones, Besides the Gospel accounts who's earliest manuscript dates to around A.D. 41. There is Talmud whose volumes mention Jesus, Jesuphus who mentions Him in his works on Jewish History, Tacitus in his Annals, and Lucian of Samosata in his highly antiChristian satires.
Nick Jones Yawn...it doesn't matter. They had more access to sources than we do. Not to mention the existence of not 1 but 4 accounts of the life of Christ all of which are dated at exactly that time frame.
Nick Jones, The heavens declare the glory of God, the complexity and size are not something chance can make no matter how many years go by. But here is a question for you. Why do you care?
Nick Jones Well yes, it does. It is the Atheist position that the universe came about by chance accident. Now if you object to this then you are going to have to demonstrate how the cause of the universe and everything in it would have to be without personality and intelligence, and still willfully make everything. If not then the only thing else is mere random chance.
Also, concerning your second part. That begs two more questions. Why does stardust infused descendants of fish (im referring to humanity) matter enough to care about morality? And underwhat basis is there a single moral notion that objectivity true under your world view?
Objectively *
About it being broadcast to everyone: what about when God speaks to Noah and Moses where He meets with him privately and gives him things to tell others about, how can I separate that in their minds from what Joseph Smith talks wbout
Because it was proven to be true throughout history. Joseph Smith and other Christian cults use the same model but its obviously false due to the fact nothing they’ve prophesied has come to pass
you'd think these guys have access to dictionaries.
How to completely refute atheism - assert that God is real. Got it
NO WE PROVE THAT YOUR POSITION IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR KNOWLEDGE THAT IS CERTAIN.
That’s an hour I’ll never get back....
That which is presented without evidence can be refuted without evidence. You didn't refute anything, you just tried to make yourself sound reasonable in the face of an overwhelming void of any actual evidence for god.
Like you would accept evidence. You create standards you can’t meet
Bunch of non-sense in this video. Explains atheism and agnosticism wrong. Real simple to make atheism go away: define your deity and provide evidence for her. Video is good for the gullible.
It happened 2,000 years ago, which was prophesied before that time in the old scriptures. Videos can be edited, and eye-witness evidence isn't substantial. How then do you "prove" anything.
DogeLife No it didn’t, You’re just gullible.
I've really been enjoying your videos Pastor Durbin
Yeah, you is good for a laugh, isn't he? So blatantly ignorant, and so loudly proud of it.
... You should know that arbitrary comments can always be turned back on their user, so I don't recommend using them.
You used a logical fallacy... Any arbitrary comment can be reversed on the opponent, it shows the one who uses it that their comment really had no real teeth.
I could just say "Why is using Troll Tactics Objectively wrong in your World View."... And you'll say "it's not objective" reducing it to an opinion, and then once again you have no teeth.
Your floor though.
Pick fights? I'm showing you made a Logical Fallacy and to reveal that your World View makes you blind to it.
Your World View is Self-Refuting, it wont be able to account for Logic, Knowledge, Memory, or Morality.
@@BoyKagome the atheist, "worldview" is not self refuting.
And please provide your evidence that atheists cannot account for logic, knowledge, memory, or morality.
Because we can account for all of those.
Logic is just an observation of the nature of reality. In fact your God is actually subject to and if he existed would have to obey the laws of logic as well. In other words logic is more powerful than your God.
Knowledge? Knowledge is just information. We learn, which is all gaining knowledge is, learning, about the world around us and we have gained knowledge as we have learned more. So it is a human endeavor and were very good at it.
Memory? Memory is a product of the brain. The brain stores information. It does so via a chemo electric system.
Do we understand perfectly? No we do not. But we do understand that memory is held within the brain, which makes memory a physical construct.
Finally morality. It's very easy to understand how morality is an evolved trait. It falls out of our empathy, which is ALSO an evolved trait.
So you lose on all of these, and you cannot demonstrate why any of them would be dependent upon your invisible mythological sky fairies that we already know does not exist
@@keithziegler8881 How can you say you see reality when your world view states we gained sight based off of survival? How do you know we didn't evolve to not see things that would be dangerous for us to see?
It's very impressive how he can debunk statements from people who are not there to defend them (and most likely never said them to begin with...). And attributing everything to Jesus, even math, without even showing any type of evidence for it...
Please show evidence for why you believe in immaterial things like math or logic without God.
@@wallchart111 you don't need God to be able to see two objects plus two objects is four objects math is a language we've created to explain how the world works around us no God is anywhere in this entire process. Logic is also a man-made creation that's been developed and is continuing to be developed now it's not done being created it never will be done it is a human construct
@@wallchart111because they are things humans came up with. Math is just counting.
Atheism doesn't say there is no god, it says there is no credible evidence for a god and thus justifies a lack of a belief in a god.
anyone who trying to debunk this video need so do it with fact fact fact fact fact fact!!!!! Not opinion!!!! but you won't because you can't so go-ahead and just keep helping us prove you wrong. Thanks Jeff for the video as always.
Ok, here's something. He says at about 7:40 that agnostics make the claim that we can't know anything. No they don't, they claim we can't know anything about any God, not everything. That is one large strawman he then goes on to dismantle.
So this guy here mostly just presented his opinion because most of his facts are mixed with opinions or are simply wrong like for example the case given on the 7:40 minute but no one says he need to give facts, but those who dont agree with him (radical atheists) must criticize him only with facts... completely fair. But remember, he explicity apeal to logic, "things must lo be logical and reasonable" so if logic does no support his claims then he is wrong, that is a fact an can be expresed as an opinion, normally christian apologists try to debunk atheists point of view going deeper into the issue, but they if you do the same with them just tell you that should give them facts and not opinions. A simple example can be showed when he says god knows everything, wich is logical, his logic and knowledge must be perfect, then why the people who claims to know the word of God or be able to interpret it always had to change their point of view because logic and experience told them (actually the people that guides themselves with logic told them) that they were wrong? We can see it in how christians and church have change their mind on topics like human rights, science, respect other`s ideas and be more pasive in their practices (like for example not to exclude or persecute people that do not have their same believe) obviously im excluiding some christian cults, talking about those cults, they believe like you or even more than you they have the right interpretation of the God`s word, by the same epistemology method "revelation", how can you tell them they are wrong if they believe for the same reasons that you in their own believes? Their parents taught them their religion, then grew up being indoctrinated and rectificate their believes with their ows cultural videos and multimedia, like this video for probably catolic people there are a lot of indoctrinating videos for JW and mormons, and to conclude, if God`s logic is completely right, then how can be posible that he condenms completely natural and inherentic bahave in humans? The fact that non believers exists is because their reasoning and logic lead them to the conclusion that religion is similars believes are ilogic, if god exist and like he said thing must be reasonable and logic so atheist`s logic must be wrong, suposing that it is true then why god would create humans with enough intelligence to be able to doubt about his existence with what they think are logical arguments and then condenms them for that? If you need to be very intelligent to believe in god or at least believe in him by logic and atheists are not smart enough because of their nature is logic that it is not their fault to be stupid but anyways you condems them, you can say that their have persons like this one to show them the way, but as you can see i have strong reasons to say he is wrong, so im so there are two possibilities, or im so stupid that i cant even understand his precise and undisputable logic or im right... Judge by yourself
Still after years, this video to this day still doesn't refute atheism on any level.
Anyone else getting a pickup artist lecture vibe from this?
Arguably Yes.
The flailing logic delivered with preening arrogance certainly fits that crowd.
about one quarter done, and still dont know how this speaker is to ...refute....anything...
“God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
James 4:6
and this guy really typifies humility.
he's not only lying about what agnostics believe, and lying about what atheists believe (he sure doesn't know why i'm atheist) but he's misrepresenting his own god, who made atheists and agnostics. isn't there a place that liars get sent to?
santa claus: knows who is naughty, knows who is nice.
god: knows who is naughty, knows who is nice.
@@HarryNicNicholas You're appealing to ethics, the universal laws of logic, induction (the uniformity in nature) every single moment of your life.
You're claiming there is no God with your mouth, but how you are living is not consistent with your view of the world.
My argument for God is the impossibility of the contrary. Apart from God, you wouldn't be able to frame or even make sense of what you are talking about. Apart from God, your worldview is reduced to absurdity.
Atheism has no basis that would satisfy the preconditions necessary for intelligibility. To appeal to universal laws of logic, uniformity, induction, ethics, or even morality.
Are you proud?
@@palerity6320 You are pretending to know of an objective morality. You don't, and that is why you cannot supply anyone with a single objective reason for why rape and murder are wrong. Unlike you, all I need is love, empathy, sympathy, pity, and a sense of fairness to tell me what to do. People who need an objective reason to not commit rape and murder are most likely psychopaths who don't know what empathy and love are. The funny thing is, the rules of logic show the Bible is wrong about just about everything, so not even God agrees with it.
@@doctorwebman No, we are saved by grace through Faith, not through works lest any man should boast. It's Christ righteousness, not our own
I have to be honest here, i only saw a small part of this video. But the title of this video is weird to me, because what exactly is there to refute about atheism? If your answer is their claim that god doesn't exist you're wrong because the vast majority don't make that claim, instead atheists don't believe in a god because they haven't seen the evidence of one existing.
What i'm trying to say is, what are you trying to refute?
frisianmouve well the whole point of this guy's little chat is to describe atheism as what it is not so that he can argue it. Bit like saying that if you do not believe in the loch Ness Monster you must believe that a sperm whale lives in loch Ness.
How to refute atheism:
Make a straw man, knock it down. Done.
And he even made a straw man out of agnosticism. He's frustrating to listen to.
Phelan Can I just say that it is understood by bible scholars who both do and do not believe in a God, that the reason true Christians no longer follow that law is because of the old covenant being fulfilled in the death of Christ and the new covenant started upon His resurrection. And if you read the Bible objectively, seriously don't look to form any conclusion of deity, then perhaps it could be read without bias. If you believe then cool, if you don't then cool.
frisianmouve he is arguing against people making g a truth claim that there is no God (atheism means no god). Saying I don't know if there is a God or I haven't seen any evidence of God is different. Christians believe that God is self evident. In other words, it's kind of like ants walking on your arm debating over whether or not people exist. It's so vast that they can't even see it and it is taken for granted. We are living and breathing evidence of God's existence. Thought, Truth, physics, nature all the things which make up our universe all are evidence. To Christians, making a claim that there is no evidence of God is kind of like saying there is no evidence that breathing exists while you are using your breath to say it (and also to keep yourself alive). It's ridiculous on its face. And thus the debate rages on :)
it seems what your saying is atheists are really agnostics
I heard a lot of claims and a LOT of begging-the-question.
If an objective foundation is required for all he's talking about re: epistemology, math, logic, etc.,...
Why is he automatically assuming it's the Judeo-Christian concept of God that serves as this foundation?
Well if you know anything about religion you'll know the biggest factor but you never studied and I won't waste my time other than look at the prophecys they'll tell you about all these.
Hindu dosnt believe they have the God but worship lower God's and they don't denie there can be a higher power God they just don't know.
Jews is the beginning of Christianity
Muslims said a book is not right then took the wrong book and changed it witch it was wrong it's wrong can't be from God. Both the Quran and the Bible both say his word won't pass or go away but Bible was way before Quran so Quran was written off Bible. If Bible is wrong you can just say his word is pure forever not changing then change it. Remember Quran says this too it won't change.
Mormans heads refuse the kjv and say they have the same but say things that contradict the Bible. They tell another gospel and the heads say Bible is wrong but then say its not at times just depends on what they want to use out of it. Jeff durbin explain morman well.
Don't you see that most are written off Bible. They all come from Abraham who the seed was promised.
Maybe look up 100 scientific facts in Bible.
Look up last war bet Armageddon comes up funny only in Bible.
@@mremberton7919 _"but you never studied and I won't waste my time"_
You know nothing about me or what I've studied. A rather poor and arrogant way of beginning your comment.
_"Hindu doesn't [sic] believe they have the God but worship lower God's and they don't deny [sic] there can be a higher power God they just don't know."_
Hindus believe in God: Brahman, expressed or manifested as a creator (Brahma), destroyer (Shiva) and preserver/sustainer (Vishnu) re: existence. So why is Brahman automatically disqualified as the objective foundation, and what method do you use to test which concept of God is 'true'?
_"Both the Quran and the Bible both say his word won't pass or go away but Bible was way before Quran so Quran was written off Bible."_
This is a separate issue: scriptural inerrancy. In reality, both the Bible & Qur'an are collections of writings and both have errors in them. The Bible sitting in your house contains stories that even devout Christian scholars admit don't belong there. For example, the story of the woman caught in adultery. It never happened. Not a single early Greek manuscript of the gospels contains it; it was added centuries later. Another example: 'Matthew' places Jesus' birth before the death of Herod the Great (4 BC), while 'Luke' places Jesus' birth during the census of Quirinius as governor of Syria (6 AD), 10 years after Herod had died. Both cannot be right. Ergo, your argument against the Qu'ran is moot.
Mormonism is just a 19th century bastardization of Christianity, started by a fraud who was obsessed with hunting for treasure. So no argument there.
_"...100 scientific facts in the Bible"_
There are plenty of scientific errors in it as well. We all know plants/vegetation couldn't grow and cover land (day 3) if the sun didn't even exist yet (day 4) in Genesis 1. We know via genetics that Genesis 30's account of striped and spotted sheep breeding is nonsense. We also know the Flood was a local event, not one that reduced the human population to only 8 people (who allegedly had to have a lot of incest in order to start repopulating the planet).
So once again, why is Jeff assuming his concept of God is this necessary objective foundation?
20:30- No. its not consistent with a chair...but I digress. Making universal claims is the problem with this argument. Loving your neighbor and not eating them is relative. Aside from some crazy hypotheticals such as cannibalizing your neighbor because that's the only way to save them from some horrible fate or something weird like that, there's never a good reason to eat your neighbor. But it is not an "absolute moral obligation that we love our neighbors and not eat them." It is a RELATIVE moral obligation. Say your neighbor was a chicken. You never said your neighbor was necessarily human. is it still an absolute moral obligation to love the chicken and not eat it? All things are relative to the specific context. It is a moral obligation to act according to empathy and, if not, there are physical consequences such as reciprocal retribution or legal action. That's how it works in reality where I live. In your emotional fantasy world, you only act morally because "god said so." You, and all your christian friends, are dishonest. You are only moral because you were told to be so. That is dishonest morality.