Weeeeellllllllll... I would say that there are probably at least a few other people who could do that. Have you HEARD some of the arguments that are used these days to supposedly "prove God"? Of course you have. 90% of the "arguments" are 1,000 years old, but maybe with an updated anecdote. Idk about you, but I've seen plenty of arguments that should obviously give anyone pause. However, if you feel that the most important aspect of your (and everyone elses) life depends on whether you truly believe this claim/human sacrifice, I can see how you would go out of your way to accept arguments that would otherwise fall quite flat for you. On the other hand, you might also go out of your way to avoid engaging in any discussion that could potentially cause you to question any aspect of your belief. I think this is why there is so much disdain when many theist leaders speak about Atheists. It's also, I suspect, why most Theists refuse to understand the actual arguments that they feel could make them question (too much).
And only skeptics ground their morality with comic books as opposed to the Bible that's a historical documentation of actual eye witness testimony copied thousands of times for centuries until it was printed and studied by thousands of scholars and millions of Christians.
Forgive me if I've missed your point, but this seems an odd take. Is it your assertion that quoting people who have said things well, especially if you attribute the quote, is a bad thing? Are you further saying that to simply list facts and syllogisms in a sterile manner is a superior means of communicating a position on topics of debate? If Samuel Clemens said something well that expresses the point I want to make in a concise, understandable, and memorable manner, it seems odd to suggest that I've committed some sort of conversational foul by quoting him rather than expressing the same thought in a longer, less clear, and forgettable manner. And it's not like the habit is limited to a particular ideology, the notion of quoting others because of the effectiveness of the phrasing is ubiquitous.
@@roberthaskins2220The point is that it's constant appeal to authority like one would cite prophets. Apologists consistently fail to make their own arguments, falling back to citing some authority they can claim has made it for them. It's a matter of frequency and ideological dependence.
@@MultiBigAndy There's reading to memorize and reading thoughtfully with understanding. Constant quotes as appeals to authority only demonstrates the former. With the latter, you can argue without citation and answer questions yourself. Citations are necessary for matters of fact and crediting a source or inspiration, not logic and reason.
@@MrDalisclock I’d imagine Frank would agree with Campbell on its existence, but then point to God as the ultimate ‘why’ for it. In fact, I think he’d probably agree, from what I can tell, with most of what Campbell is saying in this article I found on it. :) Of course they’d disagree on Jesus being mere myth, but that’s the point of chats like these. :)
Gotta love how Turek argues against points Paul didn't make and ignores questions he asks. Then, when challenged on his own arguments, just refuses to substantiate them because "it's just one argument out of many", almost like he knows they are crap. I've seen loads of flat-Earth creationists use the same strategy. Come to think of it, the similarities don't end there... *edit: oh good grief, not the _appeal to Ehrman's authority but it's also a lie_ argument again...
I feel that Frank Turek's soccer example was a huge self own. Paul's interpretation aligns much more closely with how the game works and how it relates to our system of morality.
Equating the similarities between mythology and superhero stories does not support the validity of the former the way Turek thinks it does. It's like saying unicorns and minotaurs exist because of Bigfoot stories.
I love when Christians bring up the moral argument. They think they have such a "gotcha". But most atheists I know have read the bible, and that god has no morality. They try to pretend like they can then ask how you can judge god, he's the one who made the rules. They like to say morals are written on the heart. But if morals are written on the heart and I look at the actions of the god and those actions are deeply immoral, then the god of the bible is obviously not the writer of those morals. I was raised Christian and extremely isolated. When when I examined the scriptures. I saw a creature that claimed he was god. He claimed he was prefect, he claimed everything he does is perfect. I also saw that his creation failed to measure up to his standard. If god were perfect, and he created people, then people would be perfect. People are not perfect, so one of the premises have to be incorrect. When I was a Christian after examining this dilemma I figured that the god of the bible was not the creator. People have come back and told me that god gave people free will, that's why we failed. They like to say god didn't fail, and that people are at fault for failing god. This to me seemed like a clear case of an abusive father that would abuse his child and the child saying his father's abuse is his own fault. It disgusted me, and that's how I became an apostate.
Your morality might not align with God, literally a holy being; to suggest that it would, would be logically incoherent. People are not perfect because we are given free will.
Seems so simple when u look at it logically..excellent post..then of course some nutjob responds..u cant understand gods morality..make us better teach us better discipline fairly..if thee were real..
Tbh, I’m a Christian but I think Paulogia has this one in the bag. Frank Turek isn’t one of the best apologist I have seen and his superhero argument seems like a very week one (there where heroic people before Jesus as well) but 6 days before is way too early to come to a conclusion so I look forward to listening to them both and seeing if I am wrong
Well youre crazy if you think had this one in the bag, Paul is so inept in his morality beliefs, absolutely ridiculous stances, which arent even defensible in any logical or rational way.
Paul is going in circles. It’s not clicking with him 🤣🥴 and obviously not clicking with you. He can’t answer the question. He can’t understand Tureks illustrations 🤦🏻♂️ There is an ultimate morality whether you agree with it or not. Murder is wrong whether you agree or not. Rape is wrong whether society says it’s ok or not. Theft etc~ Society is always changing their stance to what’s right and wrong. Like Nazi germany But the rules of morality has always been the same! Who wrote those rules?! Who started it? And why does it work when you live by it!? And those who don’t live by it suffer and create hell on earth because they have no morality. Paul can’t get past the surface layer of deep questions of philosophy. I think it’s an iQ issue.
I recently went and compared the gospels side by side for the first time. I highly recommend anyone that's interested in Christianity or is a Christian or just curious go and try that. It's fascinating.
@@MarteenGreen I should have added that it's an ongoing process and that I mainly looked at the crucifixion and some of the details of the life of Jesus so far. So.. I couldn't say, I haven't gotten there yet, but I soon will and then I'll get back to you :) I remember a video where Prophet of Zod discussed this, but I feel like that's cheating if I use that xD
@@MarteenGreen Probably Jesus, let's be honest here. Until Jesus left the tomb, the tomb was occupied. So, assuming he ever did glance backward at any point, he'd have been the first to see the tomb empty (because he'd just walked out of it) Okay, I'm being a smart arse. Carry on!
Did Frank Turek honestly just say what I think he said? ''we know God by his effects, his effects is creation'' now surely this is circular reasoning and Frank knows better than that!
Bringing up Han Solo doesn't really work for Frank as much as he thinks it does. In the movies, Han sees people blocking lasers with their eyes covered, jumping higher than any normal human, moving stuff with their mind, etc. And the ones doing those things are the believers. He was an eyewitness.
According to the lore so were Peter and John. And Paul. And James. Wow there’s a ton of eyewitnesses according to the lord. We could talk about if the lore is genuine of course, but I don’t think you can deny what the lore says
@@joshs2986 Yes, that's what he said. Which is wrong. How many Christians have seen the miracles? The resurrected Jesus? The ascension? Most Christians believe that there were witnesses, but weren't witnesses themselves. Han saw the Force in action.
@@Fernando-ek8jp do you think if you don't witness a miracle, you therefore have bad evidence? Or you can't have good evidence? I assume you didn't get to your philosophical position based on a miracle correct?
@@gurunelo He meant annoying people with your own self-righteousness. That's what he claims Jesus never did. Jesus mainly annoyed the Jews with his claims to be God.
@@michaelmiky11 if someone comes to me tomorrow claiming to be the son of god and because of that i have to live my life the way he tells me to, it will be the most annoyingly self-righteous thing i've ever heard in my life. Of course if i believed to be true it wouldn't but i don't think that was the case of the jews in relation to Jesus's claims.
@@gurunelo Yes, Jesus both claimed to be the Son of God and gave commandments, but not in the way you paint it. He never walked up to someone and self righteously harrassed them. He mostly answers those who came to him with questions.
@@michaelmiky11 well, he came to the apostles to "recruit" them and kicked the vendors out of the temple and gave a sermon on the mountain so he did harass some people and tried to gather some following. Besides that he was threatening people who didn't accept him as their lord and savior with eternal condemnation, that's worse than harassing, that's extortion.
@@lovegod8582 I have no problem with you thinking it also historically happened, as long as you see it is structured for metaphorical purposes. Asserting it is a historical narrative, though, does not really advance the conversation. Clearly the author has sandwiched the fig tree story around the clearing of the temple for a reason. He's telling you whose time is up and who won't "bear fruit again." It goes (1) cursing the tree, (2) overturn the money changers tables, (3) return to the tree and see the cursed tree had withered. If that's all we knew, you wouldn't think it's "clearly in the middle of a historical narrative." You're free to say that both events happened historically and Mark told it this way for narrative reasons, sure.
"I am very uncomfortable with the thought that we don't have an objective moral template, therefore we have an objective moral template." Such impeccable reasoning, Frank. -___-
It's not really that. It's more along the lines of if there is no objective moral reality, then all morals simply amount to make belive, and all disagreements/conflicts of any kind can only boil down to "might makes right" The person/group with more power enforces their make believe over the person with less power make believe. Now mabey you belive this is the case. If so, then the follow up question is, why don't you act like it? Even when people say that they think morals are completely subjective, they still stand for their own subjective morals as if they are more than just their own personal make believe. Because if they were to practice what the preach in terms of subjective morality, they wouldn't stand for, or have any moral take, on anything because literally no position you can have can be anymore valid Tha any other position. Therefore whenever moral quadriceps come up you can't act to do anything for, or against them.
@LeoB your missing the point. Im not saying that we are supposed to have inherent infallible technical knowledge of the objective standard. Im saying that you have assume there is some kind of objective standard (even if you may be wrong according to it currently) because if you don't assume that, then there is zero reason to even attempt to find a "right" or "better" solution when disagreements do come up. Because if there is no objective morality, then the concept of "right" holds the exact same position, and meaning as someone's favorite ice cream flavor. If your going to say the only reason to work things out isn't because you believe you there is an actual right way to absolve the conflict, but rather it is so the going is smoother between interactions, and people, then 1 there is exactly zero reason to call that right, even subjectively, because your admitting even to your self your doing it for a level of social comfort, not because you have any actual conviction of it being morally correct. And besides that, there is a much simpler way to do that. Just start adhering to "might makes right". After all it's the only functional system that can be real, and genuine if morality is fully relative. All you have to do is either gain more systematic authority over others, or become physically more powerful, and have the means the get away with both when used, and then there is virtually zero social griping with you. Because might makes right, and you have far more might than most I people. And if you say that you don't think you have the capability to do that, then again your not trying to work things out based on some conviction of doing even a personal definition of good. Rather you have formed a personal definition of good in such a way that it favors your outcome in the majority of situations, because you do not believe you are capable of the proper amount of might in order to overrule, or win out all conflicts of interests. And that's not moral thinking.
@LeoB once you assume that there is at least and objective good to be had, then you can at least have a point in the whole idea of usilimg logic and discussion to reason out what it may be. But without an assumption of an objective standard to try to work towards, you aren't reasoning towards anything in moral discussions. You have just as much validity in trying to convince people to switch people's favorite ice cream flavor to match yours as trying to convince them not to kill, or steal or murder. Because if there is an objective standard, there is at least the in principal idea of justification. I.E. I propose that life is inherently good, ad should be preserved therefore, murder is wrong. With assuming an objective morality, then you can at least propose that there is a direction to go in. Where as if you assume relative morality, you are in a vacuum, then you can't even make the initial proposal that life is inherently good, because that's just your favorite icecream flavor, it doesn't actually mean anything. It can by definition of being relative only ever actually be good to you. And if your lucky enough to have others Agree with you, then cool. That's lucky. But you have zero justification to even start trying to convince someone who doesn't think life is good, that it is good. Because the meaning they made up (that life instead good) automatically inherently has the same validity that the meaning meaning you have made up does (that life is good) So if you are trying to convince them on grounds of relativism what are you going off of? Why should they change their equally valid idea to yours?
@LeoB with this you have confused the idea of morality being subjective situational to the idea that it is subjective in a purely relativistic sense. To use your example of self defense. Yes it is fine if you kill someone in self defense, but it is only okay, because it was not objectivly right for the other person to try to kill you for whatever reason the had be it envy, hate, jealousy, greed, etc. Now if you wanna propose they were only trying to kill you because some else had their family hostage, and was making them. Then you just follow that train backwards, and the person who's holding the family hostage shoulders the objective evil of threatening, or taking life for hate, personal greed, etc.
So many people today love their super silly supernatural stories, I mean look at all these movies. But 2000 years ago people only liked their silly supernatural stories if they were real🙄🙄🙄 Sure Frank.
Starwars was heavily influenced by George Lucas reading Joseph Campbell "The Hero with a Thousand Faces". He had a rambling space-opera and it was Campbell's work that tied it all together.
I had the impression that the first break saved Paul... With regards to his moral law foundation: I was wondering, how Paul could explain the fact that Stalin who won the II WW, sacrificing 30 million of his own citizens, short after that began another purge to stay in power ... Was he biologically motivated? Are we focused on our own survival or the survival of our group? How do we know it and who or what programmed us this way?
@@jozefk8948 Stalin was the head of a nation that had an extreme reaction to the prior extremely religious and power hungry rulers. Not all who were killed were religious, as it was more about him wanting people to bow to the state. His actions would not be considered moral based on Secular Humanism standards of overall well being for humanity. Which is based on a sense of empathy which humans have evolved to have.
So true. It was blindingly frustrating that so many times, Paul was making a point and the host would interrupt. Blatantly protecting Frank and his weak apologetics.
Great conversation, but it suffered from what I think a lot of potentially great debates suffer from: the debaters start going into deep, interesting topics that aren’t necessarily “on point” with the catchy title of the debate and the moderator has to redirect. “I know the nature of morality is more interesting, but this is supposed to be about Star Wars!”
Frank can't seem to understand there are more choices than either an ultimate standard of goodness and individual subjectiveness. When we work together, it produces better outcomes for humans collectively than if we don't.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros, so you don't think humans working together produce better outcomes than if we don't? Cause that's all I said. And we subjectively get to choose what those goals are. I like the idea of maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering. If others do to, we can work together to reach toward that goal.
When xtians ask how we can know the Nazis were wrong, why do they never assume the Jewish perspective? Why do they never ask how do we know if the Jews were wrong to think they shouldn’t be robbed, put in camps, separated from their loved ones, and murdered? I think they should re-examine why they ask for us to judge the Nazi goals and motivations.
Turek has some really tired arguments about the reliability of the gospels. He essentially just says we can't prove their unreliability so he will keep assuming they are true. How boring... If the writers believed it, thats good enough for him. Great, but where did the writers get the information? Oral tradition. How reliable is oral tradition? They dont even claim to be witnessess, so is our worldview supposed to be based on our trust in unfalsifiable rumors? I'm happy to believe that they believed it to be true, but I expect the dudes who brought down the World Trade Center believed their stuff too, and they can't all be correct. All this fluff about Jesus being hella influential can be explained by totally mundane historical context; none of the magical stuff needs to be true for us to find ourselves where we are today. I swear, Turek's target demo must be people who only read Turek.
If you are curious if the reliability of oral tradition, I’d check out Inspiring Philosophy’s video on it. It’s a great reminder of how capable the mind is when not inundated by nonstop access to information like we are today! :)
It was interesting watching Frank interrupt Paul more and more at the end, in the middle of Paul making his points. I thought that was telling; they were fantastic points.
If you want to see interruption go watch the atheist experience. Frank is about as respectful as you can be. Your comment is very telling, that you arent the most objective person.
@@yellowman9721 the thing that astounds me is that the callers always take it, and dont understand how they are going to act or answer. Its just a game they are playing.
it is interesting to note that pretty much ALL debates i'm watching lately, paulogia, pinecreek, tjump, rationailty rules, they ALL spend way, way, WAY more time listening than talking, watch tom jump, he must spend 80% of his videos listening, something theists find really hard to do, and absorbing is impossible for most of them.
Funny how Frank's example of purpose in soccer turned into a mere illustration of what purpose could be after Paul rightly pointed out that soccer is only a game because people agreed to follow the rules they designed.
@Ise River What's funny is you clearly don't understand the analogy. It's not about whether soccer is a game, it's about the meaningful and necessary presuppositions utilised to construct a game in the first place. Paul's whole worldview was debunked by his absurd appeal to determinism which negates the possibility of meaningful discourse.
@@nataliedesilver hahaha, sure is presumptuous to think god is real and thor isn't. Got any evidence? No, all you have is an argument that's so easy to counter you have to pretend you didn't actually make the argument. Like Frank with his soccer argument that quickly turned into an illustration.
@@konroh2 biology, chemistry and physics explains that perfectly. If you want to say 'god did it', then I can't wait for you to present evidence for your god and overturn the entire fields of biology, chemistry and physics.
@@iseriver3982 What do you think that science has figured out? We don't know the origin of life or the meaning of life, purpose, significance, and there are huge gaps in our knowledge of life. We absolutely do not have an explanation for why life exists from a scientific perspective. So what do you think is "explained perfectly"?
The Mary Sue comment killed. A close second was the comparison to similarities in the Batman movie iterations. I don’t think Frank was ready for Paul on this one.
Really? I thought it stunk. It was just a retread of one of the most tired and worn out skeptic arguments there is - that the gospel writers embellished the story. It’s unfortunate Frank even needed to spend time addressing that all but one of the disciples went to their deaths because of this message, and with no identifiable motive to do so, let alone the public nature/setting of these writings which would have quickly discredited them if they were indeed embellished, not to mention non-biblical sources which corroborate key attributes of Jesus’ life, such as his ability to perform miracles. I mean, this is pretty much grade school apologetics.
@@lukejamesadams31 Could you specify which non-biblical sources corroborate Jesus's ability to perform miracles? How about any source for all but one of the disciples going to their deaths because of a message?
@@rembrandt972ifyhe’s probably referencing josephus saying that jesus was claimed to have done “unusual” (sometimes translated as “controversial”) things. that’s the closest you can get to an extra-biblical miracle claim
@@rembrandt972ifyoh i agree. that's what i worded it the way that i did. by all accounts, he was just writing down what christians believed, which is similar to someone writing about what david koresh's followers believed. doesn't co-sign the beliefs, just denotes that other people believed it.
I love how Turek will make an argument, like an argument from popularity, then when it's addressed well he says "well, it's not evidence but..." If you aren't trying to use it in an evidential manner, why did you bring it up in that context?! And when it's addressed, why do you have no better argument?
@Blessed So, we have a video with two people representing opposing sides, and the topic of discussion is a question seeking an answer from both sides, and a moderator to help guide the topic. And it's not a debate? Sure, it isn't a formal debate, but it certainly has a point-counterpoint style to it. So yes, I would say it's an informal debate. Frank also used many of his key phrases from his debates. So it would seem that perhaps Frank was approaching the topic as though it were an informal debate. And regardless, many conversations take on a debate-like quality, particularly when you have two people who have opposing beliefs. Much like the conversation you and I are having here in the comments. I would also point out that many people have written books justifying their atheism, many of which have sold very well. So I think at least a few people have taken your idea already.
@@Futt.Buckerson You're missing the point. Whether you wish to call it a debate or a discussion is irrelevant, the atheist declared he's a determinist which negates the possibility of meaningful discourse altogether. Why? Because the formulation of sentences presupposes words are chosen and have meaning, it's that simple. Furthermore, Frank doesn't make an 'argument from popularity but rather he's arguing against the notion of an appeal to consensus which the atheist goober is trying to do. Pop culture atheism is beyond a joke.
@@nataliedesilver Am I missing the point? Or did you just want to talk about something else and needed a condescending segue? Paul ("the atheist") isn't making an argument from popularity. I assume you're talking about the discussion on morality, if so, he's saying that a degree of consensus exists regarding things like murder. But as Paul sort of touches on: it's still a subjective thing. But I can see how that can be conflated w/ argument from popularity. Now, Frank made the case that Jesus is so popular, how can he not be God. That's the definition of argument from popularity. Can you provide a timestamp for Paul's Declaration of Determinism? Not that it matters that much, I just don't recall such a declaration. And even so, he could be wrong (which Paul knows), which would mean that discussion does matter.
@Blessed Yes, many conversations (even those on TV) can take on many qualities of debate. Why is that such a sticking point for you? 🤔 And no, Frank doesn't win because he claims we have no objective moral basis.
@@nataliedesilver please think about what you're saying for a quick sec..... Do you believe that a god exists and caused everything to be put in motion up until this point??
Very impressed with Paul. Not only is he clear in his thinking but also has a lot more patience than I do for nonsense. Great job Paul! Frank.... I really can't see you as anything more than a liar at this point. I don't think that's my fault.
Paul locking horns with Frank on the moral argument was just great. Kept composure in a situation I would fall apart in due to Frank’s well constructed and practiced play book. Frank tried to lead him to a place of discomfort and cognitive dissonance and Paul owned his position entirely well. Good on ya Paul.
Regardless of that this was not Paul's strong suit - in fact he shot himself right in the face when he started out with the necessity of a moral arbiter There is plenty of good natural morality that he needs to Bone up on
Frank's unwillingness to acknowledge that the gospel writers had access to previous accounts is shocking. Of course the character of Jesus is consistent throughout the different books.
Paul destroyed Frank. His position was better informed, better reasoned, better expressed and never required an appeal to authority or intuition. Just beautiful Paul!
Pretty obvious that Frank Turek doesn't often talk to people who can intelligently disagree with him. His responses are mostly deflection and weak generalisations, plucked from his Apologist playbook.
Ok.... our super hero fables draw on mythological tropes and conventions from previous legends.... except for the Jesus story. That one's completely original. Got it. 🙄
@@psicologomiguelcisnerosBut before the NT was written, in that place and culture you already had stories of emperor Vespasian spitting in the eye of a blind man to heal him, Dionysus turning water into wine, Odysseus returning to visit his friends in disguise after a long absence so they didn’t recognize him until he revealed himself, and various gods and demigods dying and being resurrected after their bodies vanished from a tomb. The gospels are an amalgamation of fan fiction and cultural tropes of the time.
In this philosophical knife fight, Paulogia was dancing with a blaster and light sabre, while FT was apparently naked and unarmed...now and again only holding up a sign with "Morality!" scrawled on it. The argument for Christian morality is fraught. There were moral arguments for Manifest Destiny, and bodies litter residential schools across the US and Canada. Those "arguments for," were the moral gold standard in their times. Things change. Even the Church.
I always look forward to these discussions with Paulogia. To me, he seems to be one of the most formidable apologists in the atheist community (hardly any Christians respond to him) so I would be curious about his input.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Dude, the next time you succeed in a debate it'll be the first time you succeed in anything other than making a fool of yourself.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Big Bang cosmology--for which there is evidence--explains the universe. Evolution--for which there are absolute mountains of evidence in multiple fields and to which you are stupidly blind--explains our existence. But I've heard enough of your babble, Otangelo, to know that you're resistant to facts and not worth as much effort as I've alread put in. Now you can go tell people that you "won" this exchange because we both know you're going to do that regardless. Claiming any god as the answer only kicks the can down the road and prevents any attempt at inquiry.
The majority of people usually don't respond to Paulogia because much of his content really isn't worth it. His primary focus, most of the time, is in superficial apologetics that no one upon the academic level would accept (primary example of this is his AiG series and his rebuttals against J. Warner Wallace).
Frank always goes back to WWII even though we're talking about Star wars and comic book movies. You could just build a Frank AI and have it spit out the same old talking points if he isn't even going to change his analogies for the discussion at hand. We're not talking about soccer, we're talking about Star wars
well yes, we want evidence, not stories, if frank had evidence then we'd all be christians and frank, or whoever would have a nobel. are you saying there is evidence of ANY of the stories about god or jesus cos we'd all like to see that.
@@psicologomiguelcisneros i can, wanna start? religion was invented around 50,000 years ago, which seems like a long time, but humans, in whatever form, were looking after mothers and babies, caring for the elderly and sick, feeding each other and generally being decent to each other so that they thrived for up to 5 MILLION years before that, religion borrows morality from secular societies.
I enjoyed this debate, a friendly discussion and some interesting thoughts from both sides. What’s the series Justin is referring to around 48:40, with the thought experiments around determinism etc?
I'm impressed and pleased this discussion remained so friendly. I'm an atheist and I'm so glad to have Paulogia represent "my side." Paul is an incredibly nice and generous person, and it doesn't pain me a bit to have to admit that aspect of his personality probably says a lot about his christian upbringing....
@@DeusEx_Machina that is not the point of the argument. No matter what do you think about the personality of Jesus, the fact is that modern superheroes and movie epic characters are inspired by Christ in his mission
@@Deividdel89 the fact is that you, at best, misunderstand the meaning of the word fact. And, at worst, are trying to conceal your own doubt with unsubstantiated certainty.
good ethics and decent human behaviour have nothing to do with appeasing a celestial being..it is for the common wellbeing of society or else it would be chaos every day.
Who deceives what is the common wellbeing? EX: Folks argued this for society when Abolitionists spoke up. If there is nothing beyond this argument, why should a slave owner change his mind?
@@joshs2986 Paul won competitions as a youth for quoting scripture, he basically knew the Bible front to back. Luckily for him and us he started studying it from an unbiased opinion.
@@brickwitheyes1710 ah but friend I guarantee you that your wrong. I'm just having fun here. Making a point that people can watch a debate and have different conclusions. So I find it a waste to just write: X person who won. Although I enjoy Paul's clarity and his tone throughout the debate. I think Frank's points on the moral argument were quite decent. Amongst others.
@@midlander4 Ok...do you know why he is dishonest compared to just being ignorant or mistaken? :/ I ask because intent is VERY difficult to prove in law and I am wrapping up my legal education. Soooo, when I hear someone claim the fella is dishonest over mere mistake, well, I want to see the evidence that shows said specific intent. :)
It's amazing that Frank wasn't totally obnoxious but he did have his Frank Turek moments such as pretending he couldn't understand how a story could be exaggerated or Twisted into a beneficial manner from actual historical accounts how walking in Shallowater became walking on water I'll bring some wine to some poor people over the years became he turned water into wine so on and so forth how could oral tradition stories possibly get convoluted or completely turn into something they were not originally how could that possibly happen?
@@joshs2986Here are the basic premises for the claim. 1. The epic of gilgamesh predates the old testament. 2. The epic of gilgamesh contains a great flood caused by the gods As to go as far as claiming that the old testament writers copied it from the epic, I haven't looked into it. But overall it just feeds onto the theme of: humans have similar shared myths that they gravitate to.
@@Fernando-ek8jp I feel you ignored what I said. Also, you can have two accounts and actually believe they aren't copies of each other. For instance they can both be versions of actual events. If that is the case I'd just argue that the biblical narrative is the correct one.
@@joshs2986 Because you were, and still are, having a completely separate argument that's not related to what I wanted to say. I am not, in any of my comments, claiming that Christians are wrong. I just have issue with what Frank said because I consider it a very flawed analogy.
@@joshs2986 just to make it perfectly clear: I stand by my first comment even under the assumption that Christianity is 100% true, and that the accounts of the Bible are completely accurate. Because most of us know of history not through being witnesses, but of stories being recorded and passed down.
Pretty sure that as much as Star Wars has anything to do with Christianity George Lucas meant for The Emporer to represent god, Darth Vader was Jesus and the rebels were representative of pagan religions and the force was the pantheistic idea. Ironically or not Christianity in star Wars is represented as/by the bad guys 🤷
What does Jesus say to do for our enemies? You are referring to the Old Covenant for the ancient Hebrews. Just like a new lease, it doesn’t bind to all who accept the new. :)
Is Frank’s argument really humans like fiction and superheroes, much like this story in an old book that’s very popular. BUT that story is true and the others are not cause I like it and I say it’s true, so it must be? Lol
"garden of eden" and "the fall of man" is basically the same story anthropologists tell about the transformation a "hunter-gatherers" (eden) into the "agricultural revolution" (the fall)
@@m76353 Well, the scientists that I see use terms like Mitochondrial Eve and such, are using them in a colloquial sense. As it seems fitting to use as a cultural reference, not that it points to creation or the bible.
Together with midichlorians there was another addition to the nature of The Force, Qui Gon drops a line about the "Living Force" which at the very least has a will, so is less impersonal, although still far from a maker. Then in RotS we have the "netherworld of the Force"
Novelization explained it better. The "Living Force" was a reference to a philosophical point of view Qui-Gon Jinn had and was a schism forming in the order. There was the Unifying Force, which is what Yoda teaches. More Buddhist in its philosophies which spoke about how the known physical world was in fact a sort of trap that you were supposed to transcend behind. To remove attachments to the physical world so that you can achieve enlightenment in the existence beyond. "The Living Force" was a philosophy instead talking about how the nature of the Force was to create connections between all living things. And that as agents of the Force their ultimate point of view was to seek oneness with existence, instead of transitioning beyond existence. That fostering connections of friendship, love, and interests in others is the way to enlightenment, rather than rejecting them. It was fundamentally incompatible doctrines that the Jedi Council and the older Jedi all followed in the Unifying Force, while Qui-Gon Jinn followed the Living Force along with some of the younger Jedi (and thus also Obi-Wan's line about how Qui-Gon could have already been on the council if he'd just agree to do things their way, etc). And why he was so excited about Anakin as the Prophecy to "Bring balance to the Force". After all, they didn't know Sith even existed at that point to be concerned with the dark side. It was the idea that somehow the Prophecized Anakin would find a way to bridge the gap between the two otherwise incompatible philosophies. ... I just found that stuff fascinating myself and while there were snippets of it in the movie,I would have liked more of that religious introspection and conflict in doctrine than we got I suppose.
this show was basically like a biblically themed debate except written in the form of a monster movie. the show definitely gave the atheists the advantage in its philosophical conclusions, but seems like it should be discussed more. plus i noticed its almost always trending on netflix in the trending section so assume its popular enough
Frank Turek's question that asks why human dive on the bomb to save another. Would be a same question if instead we were to ask why would a water buffalo choose to stand ground against a predator, to help save another buffalo, instead of turning tail and running away to save itself. Same thing with Elephants too, if we were to ask why they cooperate together to help their elephant clans, rather than to just turn tail and run away to safety for themselves and focus on merely seeking to save themselves alone, and so on. However, there's not one of the beings (human,buffalo,elephant ) what would have AVOIDED their extinction, unless they'd been the type of being what would NATURALLY attempted to turn toward social cooperation, together, as a systems whats "fittest for survival" . Right?. And us human are still following the trait we had originally acquired earlier on in time too. We are not so different than the buffalo,elephants and others too, in this sense. Why is it that Frank cannot see this?. Does Frank ever sit and wonder why "it is" that the buffalo and elephant choose to do what they do. Surely Frank hadn't been led to believe that the buffalo and elephant might read bibles too (like human do). Had he? I suspect Frank might have set of to find evidence that evolution would only ever be "dog eat dog" cold hearted type nasty thing what they teach people to believe in church groups. However, there's miles of scenario in nature , what provide us evidence to suggest that acts of altruism can also be beneficial to beings "as a whole" for survival (rather than to face extinction) So altruism can also still be motivated by a "form of selflessness". Ie:The selfish urge of "beings" to seek "a way" to survive Still selfish foundation, and yet can also have become the precursor for something "good" like what us human by now end up "to think of" as "morals" Perhaps Frank be better to accept that evolution OBVIOUSLY isn't necessarily the stone cold hearted matter of like what Franks "been mislead" to believe it is. Right? . If Frank was already SET ON (determined) attempting to try his best to "complicate" the situation (to try to fit God into the picture), then he'd have already been acknowledging this by now The same similar traits have also arisen in other beings existences. Its not only among human who are the beings considered to be far more aware, either. So perhaps its "something" far more regular than what people of faith would care to stop to consider ?
There are definitely a few species that are solo and in their case they really don’t have much empathy.. but when we look at other tribalistic animals, we see governing systems, etc (“Pecking order”, “Alpha wolf”). These systems may not be as water tight as we describe, but a mix of selfish and selfless behavior is what we see many animals do today. Nature is at a weird in between of a completely altruistic group and a Nash equilibrium for a lot of tribal species, but it works. You view your tribe as allies , not enemies
@@jhmejia yes because its also still random . Although nature provides a type of driving force in itself. Like with the way how there's been extinctions caused by nature .Continental drift too. While those are possibly random events they'd still act to cause a certain outcome which some being might then face and proceed to attempt to survive with. In amongst those happenings is when one lot of beings may end up to go one way, while some others take the opposite approach. But its common. That's whats clear. Isn't it John. Its quite clear to us that there are in fact a number of different groups of beings, other than ourselves , what all adopt altruism as a integral part of their survival plan. That's what Frank Turek has possibly overlooked. Frank needs to alter his claim that beings might turn into "dog eat dog" minded beings, unless they'd believe in a God. This claim that Frank makes, is terribly misguided and lacking in insight, as it must overlook so much of this evidence we see in nature with regard to beings other than ourselves.
If it was false it would have been easy to stop at the start... Wow. I mean, if Christianity was the only religion in the world I might concede the point. Or maybe he thinks all religions are true.
@@konroh2 If there was only one religion claiming to have evidence pointing to ultimate truth, you might have a point. But given that different religions have claims of ultimate truth, and within pretty much every religion you have different sub groups claiming to know the proper interpretation of said ultimate truth, I personally have a hard time knowing which of them is the one, single, perfect, ultimate truth.
The fact that Turek thinks being "locked in agnosticism" regarding unfalsifiable religious claims is a bad thing tells you everything you need to know about him.
I'm a Gnostic Atheist because religious/spiritual beliefs are indistinguishable from delusion. For Naturalistic theory that's delusional I point to Simulation Theory.
I feel like Paul knows more about the subject of Frank's own book than frank does!, so maybe that's why Frank keeps trying to srgue the general moral argument .Frank can't go head to head with Paul on the show's actual topic, so he circles back to his comfortable wheel house where he feels more knowledgeable. Even the host tried to keep frank on topic. Frank's new book must be pretty amateur then.
Frank really wanted to hold onto the idea that the Gospels are eye-witness accounts. That's not what the evidence shows, the fact that no church father before 160ACE quotes from the Gospel by name, and quotes them as if they have no name is not expected under traditional authorship. The fact that the only copies of the Gospels we have with titles is from after 160ACE is also not expected under traditional authorship. The fact that an alleged eyewitness (Matthew) copies *word-for-word in a language different to the one they spoke* from a non-eyewitness (Mark) is also not expected under traditional authorship. This all makes a lot more sense as a codification of an oral tradition.
@@jessebryant9233unfortunately I don't know of any reason to think they are presented as eye-witness accounts, the authors never identify themselves by name, and never say "I, Matthew, saw this" for example, could you let me know what it is that points to the Gospels being presented as eyewitness accounts? In terms of the lying, I don't think the disciples wrote the Gospels, so I think they were authored by sincere believers. These people weren't lying, they were writing what they and others had come to believe through the oral tradition that predated the Gospels.
@@simonodowd2119 You don't know any reason? So them claiming it doesn't count? _Hey, why should I believe whatever it is that you do and were there any eyewitnesses to support your beliefs?_ Yeah, the gospels are believed to have been written either by the disciples or those close to them-those who knew them. And when it comes to the rest of history from antiquity, if you wish to dismiss the gospels, then you pretty much have to dismiss literally everything from antiquity. There are no accounts more supported by extant manuscript evidence or even resources so close to the actual events or that are supported by other sources.
@@jessebryant9233 can you please point me to where the Gospel authors claim to be eyewitnesses? I have referenced readily available historical records, I don't need eyewitnesses when there is data available.... Does the number of manuscripts somehow make what's contained in it more true?
@@simonodowd2119 Well, I'm thinking NT, not just Gospels, so Acts is the first thing that comes to mind. And so first you act like a lack of eyewitnesses is an issue and now you claim you don't need 'em? _What?_ More true? Literally NOBODY is so much as suggesting any such thing. But what it does show is consistency-something you simply can't appeal to for other events of antiquity-because the records are not as close to the events or as plentiful. Now, back to my question to you... _What does Simon say in answer to that?_
Jesus would have never have made it to Golgotha had he been openly claiming to be god (something only John really introduces to the narrative). He would have been showered with stones and left for cardion cross. As soon as that claim passed his lips.
I find it interesting that Turek notes that people love a fantasy story, but doesn't realize that he continues to tell one that is very popular. Greatest story ever told, indeed.
@@sidtom2741 check out pew research, christianity is killing itself. frank is helping, if you can't see he's a book salesman and a carnival act, other christians can, apologists like frank and koukl and braxton, and j warner are the reason people are leaving the church, not only can they see they are just spin doctors for god, but no one wants homework, especially science, theology and philosophy homework. they just want hymns.
@@sidtom2741 er, fantasy fiction is fantasy, what? religion is fantasy too, if you think the bible is a better, more convincing story than any other religious fantasy book, you ought to do english comprehension over.
Objective moral values are useless as a concept without a way to figure out what they actually are. We've had Christian dominance for 1500 years in Europe and only within the last decades they figured out that same-sex couples marrying and having sex isn't sinful or degranged at any larger scale (unless you're a devout Catholic, the Church calling it "gravely immoral" in 2003 as an example, or any number of other bigoted and homophobic denominations who still oppses it in all forms). Despite all of that supposedly being in their book written with the intention to offer clear moral guidance. Imagine screaming the sky is blue for all those centuries, while those who invoke your name insists it's red. That's Christians on countless moral issues over the years.
I speak from experience but it's amazing how ignorant Christians are about their own faith. I am convinced Christians believe because is makes them feel better. They didn't start believing because they critically compared religions and examined scripture. Christians emotionally decide to believe and cognitive dissonance and confirmation biases take over from there. I never thought I would ever leave the Jesus train but here I am finally free from the shackles of religion.
We can't even say that Jesus was the original model of the "hero" as there are other Gods and Demi-Gods who go through the heroes story and even end up sacrificing themselves before him (Heracles, for example). Also, around the 50 minute mark... anyone else thing Turek is describing his lover as opposed to the hateful jackass in the bible?
You took the words right out of my mouth. Paul has an exceptional story to write. I think his humility gets in the way. Either way his life is an example of "I wanted to know the truth."
The only one writer who might not have seen the events was Paul. He has many could have witnessed the events and denied them like so many. God’s best on our quest for absolute truth
It's an old video, but I'm often behind. Even so, Frank Turek did not conduct himself well. Repetition of your original point in the face of potential counter-arguments or counter-evidence is not a rebuttal. Similarly, failure to listen to and account for what the person across from you has said is not a dialog, it's a monologue with a noisy audience (Turek monologuing and Paul as the "noisy audience"). Finally, the ending Gish Gallup from Turek, followed by his constant interruptions of Paul to nit-pick individual points demonstrated an inconsistent standard - both of communication and of argumentation.
Yeah, Turek is not very nuanced in most cases. It doesn’t help either that Paul is also not very nuanced on the moral argument, leading to probably the most fun part being, well, kinda repetitive. :P
That doesn't work well as an explanation if you don't get to share your genes, or if your genes get outbred. Which in the early days of any sort of altruistic development, would be the case
There is no need for absolutes in morality because the goals even intersubjectively agreed upon remain situational. The same action can be considered morally just dependent on circumstance. To use Turek's example Nazis engaged in execution for their reasons, the allies engaged in executions for theirs. What grounding beyond subjective preference grounded in basic biological game theory does one need. It is objective only in the sense the rules are known and agreed upon. None of this gets us absolute morality grounded in a prescriptive Big Boss. The Boss still needs to been demonstrated to exist and of course individuals and collectives under divine command theory (if we concede to free will for argument's sake) they can still disagree with 'God' or the Rule Maker's rules were there to be the evidence such an entity exists. No form of morality can prove the positive ontology of the Law Giver. A broad church social contract is enough to label this action in this circumstance as objective within the terms of said contract. As to the 'savior' archetype begining with Jesus and/or Yahweh, how did we come up with historical soteriological heros antecedent to those characters appearance? It doesn't mean a Christian god isn't real. But it means they had cultural predecessors for their characters mythical or otherwise. Let's say okay Superman is based on Jesus (spurious as the connective narrative tissue may be), how could we say that Jesus is the archetype for Thor? Isn't it self evident that comic book Thor is based on the Ancient mythological ( or actual Thor)? It's definitionally, tautologically the case, in name and largely In deed. The hero's journey archetype seems to predate written history and there remain humans to this day who would have the greatest possible being concept potentially, who have never been exposed to Abrahamic lore. It's fairly clear that the most reversed human in any tribe of primates is the archetype for the ultimate arbiter of perfection.
Frank is such a disingenuous twit. Inventing a "perfect" character is easy, it's making one that's flawed that's difficult. The are several versions of Batman, or Spiderman, or Robin Hood, or Romeo and Juliet, yet they all contain the essential elements that make those characters who they are.
@fred_derf In defense of Turek, we think the contemporary ‘perfect’ characters are actually flawed in their self righteous and arrogant approaches. The problem is that the writers don’t realize this and wrote them as adored by everyone…which we catch on to and have problems with. :) EX: Rey is, on paper, a great hero by skills/feats. However, in context of who she should be, the execution is horrible since she is contradictory (ex: grows up neglected and isolated for most of her life, yet chipper, earnest, honest, lighthearted, etc.). For Jesus, I don’t see the same contradictions nor is the context making it improbable/impossible for him to exist. I think it would be super easy to mess all of this up, so maybe you can show me where the Gospels do just that. :)
@@FuddlyDud You've missed the point. People don't write perfect characters (although Superman, Captain America, etc. come close) because, 1. it's lazy writing, and 2. they don't make interesting characters. The jesus character is not an interesting character, if it wasn't for the religion that grew up around him no one would care about him. _"For Jesus, I don’t see the same contradictions [...]"_ You don't see the contradiction between the jealous, vengeful, murderous, ragefull, vain character in the first part of the book with the humble, pacifist in the second part? And please, don't tell me that jesus and Yahweh are separate characters when it's made clear that they are the same singular god.
@@fred_derf " You've missed the point. People don't write perfect characters (although Superman, Captain America, etc. come close) because, 1. it's lazy writing, and 2. they don't make interesting characters." That's not totally true, for we do have 'perfect' side characters regularly. You are conflating characters overall with protagonists/main characters of a story. Heck, you list 2 near 'perfect' characters and they are well beloved due to the hardship they overcome (can compare to Jesus)! :) "The jesus character is not an interesting character, if it wasn't for the religion that grew up around him no one would care about him." Captian America is interesting because, despite his small frame, he has will and mind that sets him apart. This is what makes his pursuit, even as he goes against bigger threats, so enjoyable. :) Similarly, Jesus can be seen as interesting as he stands up to the more radical Jewish sects that ultimately concludes with the ultimate triumph. You can of course be disinterested, but that is itself a complex (interesting) narrative you can unpack and debate. :)
@@fred_derf "You don't see the contradiction between the jealous, vengeful, murderous, ragefull, vain character in the first part of the book with the humble, pacifist in the second part? " Nope, but am open to go through citations with you! :) "And please, don't tell me that jesus and Yahweh are separate characters when it's made clear that they are the same singular god." No, I am neither Mormon nor a JH. :P I see them as one character, one real person that lived. However, since his life is written as a story, we can just stick to the claim of his "perfect" character and not address historicity. :) NOTE: Paul's point on him being "perfect" due to legendary development is a much better position if you want to switch to that right now. ;)
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros All except the ones that weren't. Just because someone grew up in a culture doesn't mean anything. It doesn't make it true or untrue. It just colors how we see the world and influences our biases. What about the Eastern cultures? Islamic cultures? What about the rest of the fucking world. There are motifs that exist in all cultures, beyond our incredibly myopic, as well as our arrogantly Euro centric view of the world. Also, don't ever presume to tell me what I do or do not understand.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros so many presumptions. Atheism has never, nor ever will be a religion. It is merely a position on a single proposition: not being convinced that any gods exist. I don't care whether Joseph Campbell was an atheist or not. That wouldn't change his field of study or his expertise in comparative myology and literature. It also amuses me that you keep bringing up Shakespear. Had an ex who did Summer Stock for over a decade. Plays filled with murder, jealousy, betrayal, murder, subterfuge, incest. Kinda like another book which I can't think of at the moment but it will come to me. Which of those themes is particularly or specifically Christian? Sure, Christianity is at the top now but that just means a bunch of white folk conquered and enslaved a bunch of nonwhite folk while suppressing their native cultures and religions. The Muslims, however, are hot on your tail, which may mean your time at the top is coming to an end. And even adding your two numbers together that barely represents 54% of the world population. Us Non-religious folks are at 15%. Which brings us to 70% and that leaves 30% of the whole rest of the world. SO as smug as you want to be, you haven't won yet, and even if you do it will have had little or nothing to do with anything you personally have done. And on that note, Good night sweet prince, parting is such sweet sorrow.
A lot of the fictional Superheroes are based on ancient gods. Not saying that gods existed because I don’t believe in a god or gods. But I do believe in extraterrestrials and our ancestors from ancient times could have been visited by extraterrestrials and would’ve thought of them as gods.
@@Hhjhfu247 but modern people think of god as a person or a Devine being that created us and everything in the universe. Religions worship something or someone that never existed. There’s no heaven or hell. I think Jesus was a real person but he was not a son of god. He was a master manipulator of people just like that leader of that cult group called Heavens Cult. Jesus said the right things for people to believe him.
Jesus is a markedly different character in each gospel and in Paul's reckoning. Make a list of his characteristics in each then mark off every time he has differing attitudes, actions... Overall attributes; merits and flaws.
In most heroic stories, the hero makes sacrifices for tangible reasons, ie stopping a bad guy or throwing a bomb into the Sun. With Jesus, you have to add a lot of theological interpretation to make his death heroic and not simply tragic.
Very good point. You know, my pet goldfish, Charlie, died the other week. It was tragic. But then I reminded myself that he died to save me from the Snorgolax that was hiding in my closet waiting to punish me for eating cookies in bed. Mind you, I've never seen the Snorgolax, nor do I have any evidence that a Snorgolax exists or existed, but I feel great comfort knowing that I am saved from eternal torture from said Snorgolax.
What stupid idea that you can't invent something that's better than life. Such a person would be legendary and exactly thats secret behind Jesus: He is a Legend. It combined so many sage personalities of the greek world. That us why nowadays historians really look into the ancient texts with the right tools. Look at the Environment, that says Greek, not really Jew, which also explains why the New Testament was written in Greek, not in the Language that the hero spoke.
It's all the tradition of the 'hero's journey' literary device. It happened long before Jesus - notably Homer's The Odyssey by 8th century BC. When pointed out, believers will accept that it's a great way to mythologize and create legends for the other narratives; except the 'hero' they believe.
How about the idea that it points to ultimate meaning? The hero's journey is a journey for meaning. Also, while I do think that Homer predates Jesus, the fact is that we only have manuscripts from 1000 years after Homer, so it's possible that the Odyssey actually comes after Jesus (based on the textual evidence).
@@tommykiger1871 I think that the element's of the hero's journey is a common theme among humanity, and it really goes back to the earliest human consciousness understanding that we are reflections of a divine Creator.
Frank keeps bringing the moral argument back to the example of Hitler as an example of why we need a source of "objective good and evil", yet the Nazis were Christians. I would argue that Hitler is evidence against an all-knowing, all-powerful source of moral objectivism. Since anyone can use their own perception of what their god wants to happen as a basis for their actions, there really isn't an objective source of what is right or wrong. It still comes down to what one believes is right or wrong, based on their own cultural experience and expectations. To say that determinism or a lack of some supernatural authority to guide us lead to having no real basis to judge what is wrong or what is right ignores that survival of our species and our natural sense of empathy which evolved as part of our nature as a social species is enough to for us to make moral decisions. We can use the metric of what causes harm or lessens the well-being of our society as being a bad thing; and what leads to flourishing and improving the well-being of our society as being a good thing. We don't want pain or death to inflicted upon us. We can easily imagine that others wouldn't want those things done to them either. I think we can see this social motivation being played out across all sorts of human cultures and societies with different religious beliefs throughout history around the world. It could be argued that religious beliefs have cause more objective suffering among humanity, simply because the religious believed theirs was the only true objective morality. In the New World, as well as in Africa, European colonists inflicted terrible suffering and deprivation upon the Indigenous Peoples by the imposition of colonial religious beliefs. Social structures which worked for centuries, no better or worse than the European models, were destroyed and cultural values were left in ruins, from which people are still struggling with the aftereffects to this day. The simple fact is that if there is a god who is a source of objective morality, that god, for some reason, has not made his/her/its intentions clear. We are left with vague, cryptic, often contradictory writings purported to be the word of this or that deity. Open to such a wide variety of subjective interpretations, these writings cannot be counted upon as a truly reliable source of guidance. So, in the end, it is still up to us to determine what we believe is right or wrong. The real danger is when we fool ourselves into thinking we are acting on the imperatives of some righteous authority, leading us to perhaps cause great harm in the name of our religion. It gets even worse if we can then absolve ourselves from any real responsibility by saying God made us do it.
It's even worse for him. The old testament is full of instances of God empowering other nations to "punish" Israel and the Jewish people, where "punish" means exile, enslave, and brutally slaughter by the tens of thousands at a crack. In fact, God has commanded multiple genocides. I'm not saying any of that is a good thing. Far from it. It's horrible. My point is though, that Hitler thought he was doing "God's work", and the mass murders he committed are on brand for God. If Frank wants to use the bible and the moral argument, he basically is forced to side with Hitler. Of course he will deny it, but that's straight to where the moral argument leads. If you want to say "God determines what's moral", you have surrendered any moral argument against the Holocaust.
He can't see how a fictional character could become so influential. Hmm. Let's look at the impact Casino Royal had on the interest of people in Poker, look at the amount of people ´who "know" what house they would be in in Hogwarts. And those are stories nobody believes to actually be true. My guess is that Turek doesn't believe all the stories in the Quran are true or the stories about the Hindu Gods. How did they become so influential? Because people in power either believed them or saw value in perpetuating them. That's it. It's not that hard.
You're answering if they were inspired by Jesus. Pointing to can be done before the event happened in this case, since prophesy is a thing in Christianity.
@@Aging_Casually_Late_Gamer Not sure how that's relevant. If you say that the Bible is wrong about the timeline of Earth, then there's no point even having the hero discussion because the conclusion is already assumed. Otherwise, the Bible starts at the beginning of time, so all events afterwards are included.
@@michaelmiky11 it's relevant because we already know that hero stories existed long before the bible even came into being. The conclusion isnt "assumed" we already know it.
It's amazing how the top apologists can spout the exact same nonsense as the worst ones. Jesus, a unique, perfect and consistent character described by eye witnesses? xD It's almost like both the ceiling and bar _have_ to be bolted straight to rock bottom with these people and their identical crap arguments to preconceived conclusions, whether they are (young earth) creationists or not...
@@noneofyourbusiness7055 Pauloga that’s one good point about predictability showing truth. On to your point, the Bible predicts that people are blinded by the truth because of their love of evil. Why did Paul leave Christianity? He says in this vid that he came to the conclusion that everything is determined by the natural means. Could it be that the Temptations at the time of his work at Lucos or Ranch helped blind him? Evidence is there for the designer and for the Bible. What what do you have to give up a few were swayed by the evidence that there is an intelligent designer who is the god of the Bible? God’s best on our quest for truth.
Atheists are blinded because they love evil? You mean, like the ~0.1% of convicted American atheists in prisons full of theists? Paul was not blinded, like most atheists he was a theist before he _thought_ about things including the creationist pseudoscience supported by this channel. As opposed of upwards of 90% of christians "learning" to see the "truth" as gullible infants incapable of critical thinking, same as other religions. I have heard of no one who became a theist because of "evidence" (because there is no valid evidence) and instead everyone cites emotional experiences, especially in a moment of desperate clutching at straws where any nice lie would be welcomed. Of course your fairy tale says people are blinded to the truth, whoever wrote that probably knew how nonsensical the story is xD
25:30 Concerning the ontology of moral goodness: In any society, even the Mafia, there are rules for pragmatic reasons. Probably, punishments are expected for those who fail to follow the rules. And there might be awards for those who perform very well. For each individual, the punishments should be bad, and the awards should be good. We have the tendency to avoid what is bad for us and be attracted to what is good for us. Even if we might think something is good for us, it might have very bad consequences. For instance, drug addiction. It seems most of all people understand that concept of individual good and bad. There aren't many discussions about what is the ontology of selfishness. Selfish people want to maximize the good to themselves, as individuals, regardless of how much others have, even if others are harmed. We have morality when people have to deal with each others. In that case, we might have conflicts. It's like in any society, but for all people. How an impartial judge would deal with that problem is the essence of moral good. Hitler might say some groups of people should be killed, because, according to him, some “race” should implement their will and maximize their imposition, and supposedly some groups are harming that “race”. But his arguments have factual mistakes and are based in selfishness. If Hitler was in any of the group are supposed to be eliminated, probably he would have a different opinion and think being killed is unfair. Even for a selfish person, being killed is bad.
Has Frank EVER read any comic book in his life??🤣🤣🤣 Superman is damn near the EPITOME of Mary Sue And with the synoptic gospels topic.... The way that Frank failed to understand it is like when you ask someone if you could copy their homework and they say, "yeah bro, but don't copy it word for word.". These gospels literally pulled from a common source, which explains why they have a majority of the same stories. And let's not act like Frank isn't arguing from incredulity..... "I don't understand how....", "I can't see how.....".
@@konroh2 by common source, I mean by the reason why the first 3 books are called the Synoptic gospels..... Mark is the earliest Gospel and the others (Matthew and Luke) copied from the author of Mark by a large amount. Damn near verbatim. It would also suffice that this is because Mark was writing down what people where already talking about for decades. There's little to no evidence that what has been written down in the Gospels were actually true.
@@MLamar0612 Why is Mark the earliest? Scholars actually disagree. What's actually true is that there is evidence that they do rely on common sources, so there are oral traditions, personal interviews and such but there are details Luke and Matthew have that Mark seems to have copied. The evidence points to independent sources relying on common events. And there is plenty of evidence that Luke-Acts is some of the best historical 1st century writing we have. Josephus is of course more thorough, but Luke-Acts hasn't been shown to be wrong historically.
Luke Skywalker probably won't be the MOST influencial character in 200 or 2000 years but Darth Vader, Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda, the guys that made Luke as he turns out to be, are already gathering a LOT of influence. Especially Ben about the relativity of truth. Not to mention I've seen at least twice kids asking if Jesus was Obi Wan. Yep, like in the meme. OK that was biased. Someone made a picture in a very geeky festival of Jesus with a lightsaber.
This was great. Just my kind of discussion! I think fantasy and sci-fi stories point to or illustrate the things we don't like about the real world, the kind of nightmares we have, the kind of world we would or might like to live in, and the kinds of people we think might come to the rescue to put things right or save us from cruel monsters and tyrants.... because we want a happy ending! We want there to be people who have courage and moral integrity who don't give up and give in to temptation... People to look up to as inspirational role models (or wish we had superpowers like them!!) So fantasy-sci-fi fans like me and many others might not just be big kids who want some escapist entertainment but also thoughtful people who wonder about the big story in the real world (if there really is one and it's not just random ups and downs!) and want it to have hope - and I haven't found more hope for the real world than the ultimate hope the Christian faith points to even though it is honest that we have a lot of hard times to go through in the mean time. Of course we all have hopes for things to improve in the world in our own lifetimes but that's not such a certain hope it's just [somtimes tentative] optimism for temporary solutions like technology invented to solve energy problems and medicines found to treat diseases etc. It gives encouragement and hope to see how God can change people's lives for the better and make us into better people who can do little things that might add up to making a big difference. Trying to make analogies with fantasy heroes and Jesus does have some points about some aspects of heroism coming from this ultimate real rescue mission and incomparable character, but they are not real world stories. I think they are understood best in their own contexts because each fantasy world has its own worldview and when you have a whole galaxy or universe invented in the story like in Star Wars, that could have practically infinitely many worldviews and myths and cultures and religious beliefs of different groups in those worlds...! Maybe criticising some fantasy works because they have a different worldview that seems in some way incompatible with our own (Christian or other) is missing the point, because to appreciate a story it needs to be understood in its own worldview which usually if not always means 'suspending disbelief'! However much or little each story hero points to Jesus, at least I think the stories as a whole point to some aspect of reality of what we as humans feel about life and our struggles and some philosophical or moral lessons the writer wants to portray, which are likely influenced by some kind of religious or cultural background.
What about the epics and hero stories before Jesus? This narrative has been told before Christianity. The most notable being Homer's The Odyssey - 8th Century BC.
Sure even Christianity and Judaism borrow from older stories. Far as I can tell that is the oldest part of who we are as humans. Story tellers. I love that about us honestly.
Thankfully it was someone like Paul who seems like a nice fellow and not someone like Dillahunty discussing who would have given it an inappropriate angry and hateful conversation.
@@AnotherViewer Dillahunty would make absolutely inappropriate tone with someone like Frank who always has nice conversations. I dont think Matt was that chill, he was quite rude as he always is to the first old guy I remember. He is just awful.
@@ceceroxy2227 Yeah, I'm an atheist and I like a lot of the older Dillahunty videos, but in recent years he has become very uncharitable, rude, and quick to anger. It's not the kind of conversations I ever feel like listening to. I imagine some people become more open to an idea if someone gets up in their face and challenges them, but it's just a turnoff for me.
@@weirdwilliam8500 he is awful, the show is terrible now, it used to be just nice conversation, he is the only one in the shows history who has acted even remotely like this, he is a coward also, he could never get away talking like this to people to their face, he would have a fight on his hands, but since he has a hangup and mute button, he can do what he pleases and make himself feel powerful.
Only Frank Turek could write a book about how closely the bible resembles fiction and think it lends credibility to it.
it is a pretty amazing way of thinking
LOL, well said.
Weeeeellllllllll... I would say that there are probably at least a few other people who could do that. Have you HEARD some of the arguments that are used these days to supposedly "prove God"? Of course you have. 90% of the "arguments" are 1,000 years old, but maybe with an updated anecdote. Idk about you, but I've seen plenty of arguments that should obviously give anyone pause. However, if you feel that the most important aspect of your (and everyone elses) life depends on whether you truly believe this claim/human sacrifice, I can see how you would go out of your way to accept arguments that would otherwise fall quite flat for you. On the other hand, you might also go out of your way to avoid engaging in any discussion that could potentially cause you to question any aspect of your belief. I think this is why there is so much disdain when many theist leaders speak about Atheists. It's also, I suspect, why most Theists refuse to understand the actual arguments that they feel could make them question (too much).
And only skeptics ground their morality with comic books as opposed to the Bible that's a historical documentation of actual eye witness testimony copied thousands of times for centuries until it was printed and studied by thousands of scholars and millions of Christians.
Everyone needs to notice how often apologists quote people. They rely more on words and beliefs than facts and provable, logical ideas.
Agreed. Infact, Frank's whole christian belief is based on the words of people.
Forgive me if I've missed your point, but this seems an odd take. Is it your assertion that quoting people who have said things well, especially if you attribute the quote, is a bad thing?
Are you further saying that to simply list facts and syllogisms in a sterile manner is a superior means of communicating a position on topics of debate?
If Samuel Clemens said something well that expresses the point I want to make in a concise, understandable, and memorable manner, it seems odd to suggest that I've committed some sort of conversational foul by quoting him rather than expressing the same thought in a longer, less clear, and forgettable manner. And it's not like the habit is limited to a particular ideology, the notion of quoting others because of the effectiveness of the phrasing is ubiquitous.
@@roberthaskins2220The point is that it's constant appeal to authority like one would cite prophets. Apologists consistently fail to make their own arguments, falling back to citing some authority they can claim has made it for them. It's a matter of frequency and ideological dependence.
Let me guess, you don't read much, do you?! 😅
@@MultiBigAndy There's reading to memorize and reading thoughtfully with understanding. Constant quotes as appeals to authority only demonstrates the former. With the latter, you can argue without citation and answer questions yourself. Citations are necessary for matters of fact and crediting a source or inspiration, not logic and reason.
I’m 4 minutes in and it’s funny that Frank doesn’t recognize that stories have similar themes and the Bible is no different.
I'm curious if Frank is aware of the mono myth theory as Campbell would put it.
@@MrDalisclock
I’d imagine Frank would agree with Campbell on its existence, but then point to God as the ultimate ‘why’ for it. In fact, I think he’d probably agree, from what I can tell, with most of what Campbell is saying in this article I found on it. :)
Of course they’d disagree on Jesus being mere myth, but that’s the point of chats like these. :)
Do these stories with similar themes have historical figures and accounts?
This is the nerdiest religious debate I’ve ever seen
I second that.😆💯
Just weird.
You’re lost
@Uncle Joe
Paulogia doesn't know the meaning of the word "deep"...
@Uncle Joe
Sure. Seeing as how you couldn't argue your point or present any evidence. You are free to believe whatever you wish to believe...
Gotta love how Turek argues against points Paul didn't make and ignores questions he asks. Then, when challenged on his own arguments, just refuses to substantiate them because "it's just one argument out of many", almost like he knows they are crap. I've seen loads of flat-Earth creationists use the same strategy. Come to think of it, the similarities don't end there...
*edit: oh good grief, not the _appeal to Ehrman's authority but it's also a lie_ argument again...
I feel that Frank Turek's soccer example was a huge self own. Paul's interpretation aligns much more closely with how the game works and how it relates to our system of morality.
I love how, even though this is a Christian channel, everyone in this comment section is criticizing Frank. I guess he’s just that kinda guy 😂
@@psicologomiguelcisneros ancient greek culture disagree
Equating the similarities between mythology and superhero stories does not support the validity of the former the way Turek thinks it does. It's like saying unicorns and minotaurs exist because of Bigfoot stories.
Minotaurs are physically incapable of existing so your analogy falls flat.
Paul is so excited in this video and I love it! We need to make him combine counter-apologetics and Star Wars more
I love when Christians bring up the moral argument. They think they have such a "gotcha". But most atheists I know have read the bible, and that god has no morality. They try to pretend like they can then ask how you can judge god, he's the one who made the rules. They like to say morals are written on the heart. But if morals are written on the heart and I look at the actions of the god and those actions are deeply immoral, then the god of the bible is obviously not the writer of those morals.
I was raised Christian and extremely isolated. When when I examined the scriptures. I saw a creature that claimed he was god. He claimed he was prefect, he claimed everything he does is perfect. I also saw that his creation failed to measure up to his standard. If god were perfect, and he created people, then people would be perfect. People are not perfect, so one of the premises have to be incorrect. When I was a Christian after examining this dilemma I figured that the god of the bible was not the creator.
People have come back and told me that god gave people free will, that's why we failed. They like to say god didn't fail, and that people are at fault for failing god. This to me seemed like a clear case of an abusive father that would abuse his child and the child saying his father's abuse is his own fault. It disgusted me, and that's how I became an apostate.
Your morality might not align with God, literally a holy being; to suggest that it would, would be logically incoherent. People are not perfect because we are given free will.
@@atanki5682 freewill doesn't exist
@@atanki5682 your god is pro slavery. I am better than him.
Seems so simple when u look at it logically..excellent post..then of course some nutjob responds..u cant understand gods morality..make us better teach us better discipline fairly..if thee were real..
@@atanki5682 why cant a humans morality align with a holy beings?wheres that written?
Leaving some ❤️ for Paulagia! :)
Paulogia
Tbh, I’m a Christian but I think Paulogia has this one in the bag. Frank Turek isn’t one of the best apologist I have seen and his superhero argument seems like a very week one (there where heroic people before Jesus as well) but 6 days before is way too early to come to a conclusion so I look forward to listening to them both and seeing if I am wrong
Thanks for heads up. I'll not listen. Never even watched star wars
Well youre crazy if you think had this one in the bag, Paul is so inept in his morality beliefs, absolutely ridiculous stances, which arent even defensible in any logical or rational way.
@@ceceroxy2227 agreed 💯
Paul is going in circles. It’s not clicking with him 🤣🥴 and obviously not clicking with you. He can’t answer the question. He can’t understand Tureks illustrations 🤦🏻♂️
There is an ultimate morality whether you agree with it or not.
Murder is wrong whether you agree or not.
Rape is wrong whether society says it’s ok or not.
Theft etc~
Society is always changing their stance to what’s right and wrong. Like Nazi germany
But the rules of morality has always been the same!
Who wrote those rules?!
Who started it? And why does it work when you live by it!?
And those who don’t live by it suffer and create hell on earth because they have no morality.
Paul can’t get past the surface layer of deep questions of philosophy. I think it’s an iQ issue.
@@cloudless01 is it worth listening to?
I recently went and compared the gospels side by side for the first time. I highly recommend anyone that's interested in Christianity or is a Christian or just curious go and try that. It's fascinating.
Who was the first to see the empty tomb, according to your findings?
@@MarteenGreen I should have added that it's an ongoing process and that I mainly looked at the crucifixion and some of the details of the life of Jesus so far. So.. I couldn't say, I haven't gotten there yet, but I soon will and then I'll get back to you :) I remember a video where Prophet of Zod discussed this, but I feel like that's cheating if I use that xD
@@MarteenGreen Probably Jesus, let's be honest here. Until Jesus left the tomb, the tomb was occupied. So, assuming he ever did glance backward at any point, he'd have been the first to see the tomb empty (because he'd just walked out of it)
Okay, I'm being a smart arse. Carry on!
@@MarteenGreen no one, it's a story.
Who saw the empty Tom first can still happen in a story.
This was a good conversation but the differences between the approaches really gets highlighted when Paul brings up the "Mary Sue" concept
yeah, that frank guy sure is some idiot eh.
Did Frank Turek honestly just say what I think he said? ''we know God by his effects, his effects is creation'' now surely this is circular reasoning and Frank knows better than that!
Bringing up Han Solo doesn't really work for Frank as much as he thinks it does. In the movies, Han sees people blocking lasers with their eyes covered, jumping higher than any normal human, moving stuff with their mind, etc. And the ones doing those things are the believers.
He was an eyewitness.
According to the lore so were Peter and John. And Paul. And James. Wow there’s a ton of eyewitnesses according to the lord. We could talk about if the lore is genuine of course, but I don’t think you can deny what the lore says
@@thetannernation Frank was using Han as an example of how people today start to believe.
@@Fernando-ek8jp I think your taking his example too far. Overall he is just saying that han solo responded to evidence just like people do to xianity
@@joshs2986 Yes, that's what he said. Which is wrong. How many Christians have seen the miracles? The resurrected Jesus? The ascension?
Most Christians believe that there were witnesses, but weren't witnesses themselves. Han saw the Force in action.
@@Fernando-ek8jp do you think if you don't witness a miracle, you therefore have bad evidence? Or you can't have good evidence?
I assume you didn't get to your philosophical position based on a miracle correct?
Frank Turek on the difference between Captain America and Jesus: "Jesus never annoyed anyone." 🤔 Lol
Which is not even true, Jesus was so annoying to so many people they nailed him to a cross.
@@gurunelo He meant annoying people with your own self-righteousness. That's what he claims Jesus never did. Jesus mainly annoyed the Jews with his claims to be God.
@@michaelmiky11 if someone comes to me tomorrow claiming to be the son of god and because of that i have to live my life the way he tells me to, it will be the most annoyingly self-righteous thing i've ever heard in my life. Of course if i believed to be true it wouldn't but i don't think that was the case of the jews in relation to Jesus's claims.
@@gurunelo Yes, Jesus both claimed to be the Son of God and gave commandments, but not in the way you paint it. He never walked up to someone and self righteously harrassed them. He mostly answers those who came to him with questions.
@@michaelmiky11 well, he came to the apostles to "recruit" them and kicked the vendors out of the temple and gave a sermon on the mountain so he did harass some people and tried to gather some following. Besides that he was threatening people who didn't accept him as their lord and savior with eternal condemnation, that's worse than harassing, that's extortion.
Jesus: curses a fig tree for not having fruit out of season. Frank: "What a morally perfect being, can't be made up."
Even granting how clearly metaphorical that passage is...yeah, the idea that any particular story "can't be made up" is ludicrous
@@nowonder6086 that’s not clearly metaphorical. Not even close. It’s right in the middle of historical narrative.
@@lovegod8582 I have no problem with you thinking it also historically happened, as long as you see it is structured for metaphorical purposes. Asserting it is a historical narrative, though, does not really advance the conversation.
Clearly the author has sandwiched the fig tree story around the clearing of the temple for a reason. He's telling you whose time is up and who won't "bear fruit again."
It goes (1) cursing the tree, (2) overturn the money changers tables, (3) return to the tree and see the cursed tree had withered.
If that's all we knew, you wouldn't think it's "clearly in the middle of a historical narrative." You're free to say that both events happened historically and Mark told it this way for narrative reasons, sure.
Non sequitur
He did it to make an illustration about the spiritual condition of Israel, not because he was annoyed at the tree itself.
"I am very uncomfortable with the thought that we don't have an objective moral template, therefore we have an objective moral template."
Such impeccable reasoning, Frank. -___-
@LeoB ye olde divine tie breaker! Makes me feel so warm and cozy that he's on my side.
It's not really that. It's more along the lines of if there is no objective moral reality, then all morals simply amount to make belive, and all disagreements/conflicts of any kind can only boil down to "might makes right"
The person/group with more power enforces their make believe over the person with less power make believe.
Now mabey you belive this is the case.
If so, then the follow up question is, why don't you act like it? Even when people say that they think morals are completely subjective, they still stand for their own subjective morals as if they are more than just their own personal make believe. Because if they were to practice what the preach in terms of subjective morality, they wouldn't stand for, or have any moral take, on anything because literally no position you can have can be anymore valid Tha any other position. Therefore whenever moral quadriceps come up you can't act to do anything for, or against them.
@LeoB your missing the point. Im not saying that we are supposed to have inherent infallible technical knowledge of the objective standard.
Im saying that you have assume there is some kind of objective standard (even if you may be wrong according to it currently) because if you don't assume that, then there is zero reason to even attempt to find a "right" or "better" solution when disagreements do come up. Because if there is no objective morality, then the concept of "right" holds the exact same position, and meaning as someone's favorite ice cream flavor.
If your going to say the only reason to work things out isn't because you believe you there is an actual right way to absolve the conflict, but rather it is so the going is smoother between interactions, and people, then 1 there is exactly zero reason to call that right, even subjectively, because your admitting even to your self your doing it for a level of social comfort, not because you have any actual conviction of it being morally correct. And besides that, there is a much simpler way to do that. Just start adhering to "might makes right". After all it's the only functional system that can be real, and genuine if morality is fully relative. All you have to do is either gain more systematic authority over others, or become physically more powerful, and have the means the get away with both when used, and then there is virtually zero social griping with you. Because might makes right, and you have far more might than most I people.
And if you say that you don't think you have the capability to do that, then again your not trying to work things out based on some conviction of doing even a personal definition of good. Rather you have formed a personal definition of good in such a way that it favors your outcome in the majority of situations, because you do not believe you are capable of the proper amount of might in order to overrule, or win out all conflicts of interests. And that's not moral thinking.
@LeoB once you assume that there is at least and objective good to be had, then you can at least have a point in the whole idea of usilimg logic and discussion to reason out what it may be. But without an assumption of an objective standard to try to work towards, you aren't reasoning towards anything in moral discussions. You have just as much validity in trying to convince people to switch people's favorite ice cream flavor to match yours as trying to convince them not to kill, or steal or murder.
Because if there is an objective standard, there is at least the in principal idea of justification.
I.E. I propose that life is inherently good, ad should be preserved therefore, murder is wrong.
With assuming an objective morality, then you can at least propose that there is a direction to go in.
Where as if you assume relative morality, you are in a vacuum, then you can't even make the initial proposal that life is inherently good, because that's just your favorite icecream flavor, it doesn't actually mean anything. It can by definition of being relative only ever actually be good to you. And if your lucky enough to have others Agree with you, then cool. That's lucky. But you have zero justification to even start trying to convince someone who doesn't think life is good, that it is good. Because the meaning they made up (that life instead good) automatically inherently has the same validity that the meaning meaning you have made up does (that life is good)
So if you are trying to convince them on grounds of relativism what are you going off of? Why should they change their equally valid idea to yours?
@LeoB with this you have confused the idea of morality being subjective situational to the idea that it is subjective in a purely relativistic sense.
To use your example of self defense. Yes it is fine if you kill someone in self defense, but it is only okay, because it was not objectivly right for the other person to try to kill you for whatever reason the had be it envy, hate, jealousy, greed, etc.
Now if you wanna propose they were only trying to kill you because some else had their family hostage, and was making them. Then you just follow that train backwards, and the person who's holding the family hostage shoulders the objective evil of threatening, or taking life for hate, personal greed, etc.
So many people today love their super silly supernatural stories, I mean look at all these movies. But 2000 years ago people only liked their silly supernatural stories if they were real🙄🙄🙄 Sure Frank.
And so many fools simply cannot defend their super silly naturalistic stories. _Are you one of the believers?_
Starwars was heavily influenced by George Lucas reading Joseph Campbell "The Hero with a Thousand Faces". He had a rambling space-opera and it was Campbell's work that tied it all together.
We will come back to this after a quick break... saves Frank Turek every time!
Paulogia did a review with some of his on line friends and that did come up. Paul wrote it off as coincidence though...
I had the impression that the first break saved Paul... With regards to his moral law foundation: I was wondering, how Paul could explain the fact that Stalin who won the II WW, sacrificing 30 million of his own citizens, short after that began another purge to stay in power ... Was he biologically motivated?
Are we focused on our own survival or the survival of our group?
How do we know it and who or what programmed us this way?
@@jozefk8948 Stalin was the head of a nation that had an extreme reaction to the prior extremely religious and power hungry rulers. Not all who were killed were religious, as it was more about him wanting people to bow to the state.
His actions would not be considered moral based on Secular Humanism standards of overall well being for humanity. Which is based on a sense of empathy which humans have evolved to have.
So true. It was blindingly frustrating that so many times, Paul was making a point and the host would interrupt. Blatantly protecting Frank and his weak apologetics.
Great conversation, but it suffered from what I think a lot of potentially great debates suffer from: the debaters start going into deep, interesting topics that aren’t necessarily “on point” with the catchy title of the debate and the moderator has to redirect. “I know the nature of morality is more interesting, but this is supposed to be about Star Wars!”
Was thinking that all the way through lol
Sounds like something Paul would say. 🤣
Also, maybe the title is just supposed to be a hook? Maybe?
The cool thing about a marshmallow Jabba the Hutt is you can put a bunch of Star Wars action figures around ít and have a whole battle scene.
Frank can't seem to understand there are more choices than either an ultimate standard of goodness and individual subjectiveness. When we work together, it produces better outcomes for humans collectively than if we don't.
bear in mind his CEO is a dictator, you don't vote for god policy.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros, so you don't think humans working together produce better outcomes than if we don't? Cause that's all I said. And we subjectively get to choose what those goals are. I like the idea of maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering. If others do to, we can work together to reach toward that goal.
When xtians ask how we can know the Nazis were wrong, why do they never assume the Jewish perspective? Why do they never ask how do we know if the Jews were wrong to think they shouldn’t be robbed, put in camps, separated from their loved ones, and murdered? I think they should re-examine why they ask for us to judge the Nazi goals and motivations.
Turek has some really tired arguments about the reliability of the gospels. He essentially just says we can't prove their unreliability so he will keep assuming they are true. How boring... If the writers believed it, thats good enough for him. Great, but where did the writers get the information? Oral tradition. How reliable is oral tradition? They dont even claim to be witnessess, so is our worldview supposed to be based on our trust in unfalsifiable rumors? I'm happy to believe that they believed it to be true, but I expect the dudes who brought down the World Trade Center believed their stuff too, and they can't all be correct. All this fluff about Jesus being hella influential can be explained by totally mundane historical context; none of the magical stuff needs to be true for us to find ourselves where we are today. I swear, Turek's target demo must be people who only read Turek.
If you are curious if the reliability of oral tradition, I’d check out Inspiring Philosophy’s video on it.
It’s a great reminder of how capable the mind is when not inundated by nonstop access to information like we are today! :)
It was interesting watching Frank interrupt Paul more and more at the end, in the middle of Paul making his points. I thought that was telling; they were fantastic points.
Didn't feel that way at all. Thought it was quite respectful
@@joshs2986 Oh, it all seemed respectful. I just got the impression that Frank found Paul's points very threatening.
If you want to see interruption go watch the atheist experience. Frank is about as respectful as you can be. Your comment is very telling, that you arent the most objective person.
@@yellowman9721 the thing that astounds me is that the callers always take it, and dont understand how they are going to act or answer. Its just a game they are playing.
it is interesting to note that pretty much ALL debates i'm watching lately, paulogia, pinecreek, tjump, rationailty rules, they ALL spend way, way, WAY more time listening than talking, watch tom jump, he must spend 80% of his videos listening, something theists find really hard to do, and absorbing is impossible for most of them.
Funny how Frank's example of purpose in soccer turned into a mere illustration of what purpose could be after Paul rightly pointed out that soccer is only a game because people agreed to follow the rules they designed.
@Ise River What's funny is you clearly don't understand the analogy. It's not about whether soccer is a game, it's about the meaningful and necessary presuppositions utilised to construct a game in the first place. Paul's whole worldview was debunked by his absurd appeal to determinism which negates the possibility of meaningful discourse.
@@nataliedesilver hahaha, sure is presumptuous to think god is real and thor isn't.
Got any evidence? No, all you have is an argument that's so easy to counter you have to pretend you didn't actually make the argument. Like Frank with his soccer argument that quickly turned into an illustration.
@@iseriver3982 How do people have minds to consent to a relational game with intelligence and standards and agreed-upon actions?
@@konroh2 biology, chemistry and physics explains that perfectly.
If you want to say 'god did it', then I can't wait for you to present evidence for your god and overturn the entire fields of biology, chemistry and physics.
@@iseriver3982 What do you think that science has figured out? We don't know the origin of life or the meaning of life, purpose, significance, and there are huge gaps in our knowledge of life. We absolutely do not have an explanation for why life exists from a scientific perspective. So what do you think is "explained perfectly"?
I love when Frank talks about objective morality and then talks about how owning people is okay because God said so.
Would you want to be owned Frank?
The Mary Sue comment killed. A close second was the comparison to similarities in the Batman movie iterations. I don’t think Frank was ready for Paul on this one.
Really? I thought it stunk. It was just a retread of one of the most tired and worn out skeptic arguments there is - that the gospel writers embellished the story. It’s unfortunate Frank even needed to spend time addressing that all but one of the disciples went to their deaths because of this message, and with no identifiable motive to do so, let alone the public nature/setting of these writings which would have quickly discredited them if they were indeed embellished, not to mention non-biblical sources which corroborate key attributes of Jesus’ life, such as his ability to perform miracles. I mean, this is pretty much grade school apologetics.
@@lukejamesadams31 Could you specify which non-biblical sources corroborate Jesus's ability to perform miracles? How about any source for all but one of the disciples going to their deaths because of a message?
@@rembrandt972ifyhe’s probably referencing josephus saying that jesus was claimed to have done “unusual” (sometimes translated as “controversial”) things. that’s the closest you can get to an extra-biblical miracle claim
@@TaeyxBlack Josephus probably never wrote anything about Jesus. He might have written about what Christians thought.
@@rembrandt972ifyoh i agree. that's what i worded it the way that i did. by all accounts, he was just writing down what christians believed, which is similar to someone writing about what david koresh's followers believed. doesn't co-sign the beliefs, just denotes that other people believed it.
Avoiding controversy by not arguing which Star Wars movie is best and debating religion instead lol.
I love how Turek will make an argument, like an argument from popularity, then when it's addressed well he says "well, it's not evidence but..." If you aren't trying to use it in an evidential manner, why did you bring it up in that context?! And when it's addressed, why do you have no better argument?
@Blessed So, we have a video with two people representing opposing sides, and the topic of discussion is a question seeking an answer from both sides, and a moderator to help guide the topic. And it's not a debate? Sure, it isn't a formal debate, but it certainly has a point-counterpoint style to it. So yes, I would say it's an informal debate.
Frank also used many of his key phrases from his debates. So it would seem that perhaps Frank was approaching the topic as though it were an informal debate. And regardless, many conversations take on a debate-like quality, particularly when you have two people who have opposing beliefs. Much like the conversation you and I are having here in the comments.
I would also point out that many people have written books justifying their atheism, many of which have sold very well. So I think at least a few people have taken your idea already.
@@Futt.Buckerson You're missing the point. Whether you wish to call it a debate or a discussion is irrelevant, the atheist declared he's a determinist which negates the possibility of meaningful discourse altogether. Why? Because the formulation of sentences presupposes words are chosen and have meaning, it's that simple. Furthermore, Frank doesn't make an 'argument from popularity but rather he's arguing against the notion of an appeal to consensus which the atheist goober is trying to do. Pop culture atheism is beyond a joke.
@@nataliedesilver Am I missing the point? Or did you just want to talk about something else and needed a condescending segue?
Paul ("the atheist") isn't making an argument from popularity. I assume you're talking about the discussion on morality, if so, he's saying that a degree of consensus exists regarding things like murder. But as Paul sort of touches on: it's still a subjective thing. But I can see how that can be conflated w/ argument from popularity.
Now, Frank made the case that Jesus is so popular, how can he not be God. That's the definition of argument from popularity.
Can you provide a timestamp for Paul's Declaration of Determinism? Not that it matters that much, I just don't recall such a declaration. And even so, he could be wrong (which Paul knows), which would mean that discussion does matter.
@Blessed Yes, many conversations (even those on TV) can take on many qualities of debate. Why is that such a sticking point for you? 🤔
And no, Frank doesn't win because he claims we have no objective moral basis.
@@nataliedesilver please think about what you're saying for a quick sec.....
Do you believe that a god exists and caused everything to be put in motion up until this point??
Very impressed with Paul. Not only is he clear in his thinking but also has a lot more patience than I do for nonsense. Great job Paul! Frank.... I really can't see you as anything more than a liar at this point. I don't think that's my fault.
Paul locking horns with Frank on the moral argument was just great. Kept composure in a situation I would fall apart in due to Frank’s well constructed and practiced play book. Frank tried to lead him to a place of discomfort and cognitive dissonance and Paul owned his position entirely well. Good on ya Paul.
Regardless of that this was not Paul's strong suit - in fact he shot himself right in the face when he started out with the necessity of a moral arbiter
There is plenty of good natural morality that he needs to Bone up on
Frank's unwillingness to acknowledge that the gospel writers had access to previous accounts is shocking. Of course the character of Jesus is consistent throughout the different books.
Paul destroyed Frank. His position was better informed, better reasoned, better expressed and never required an appeal to authority or intuition. Just beautiful Paul!
Pretty obvious that Frank Turek doesn't often talk to people who can intelligently disagree with him. His responses are mostly deflection and weak generalisations, plucked from his Apologist playbook.
Ok.... our super hero fables draw on mythological tropes and conventions from previous legends.... except for the Jesus story. That one's completely original. Got it. 🙄
@@psicologomiguelcisnerosBut before the NT was written, in that place and culture you already had stories of emperor Vespasian spitting in the eye of a blind man to heal him, Dionysus turning water into wine, Odysseus returning to visit his friends in disguise after a long absence so they didn’t recognize him until he revealed himself, and various gods and demigods dying and being resurrected after their bodies vanished from a tomb. The gospels are an amalgamation of fan fiction and cultural tropes of the time.
In this philosophical knife fight, Paulogia was dancing with a blaster and light sabre, while FT was apparently naked and unarmed...now and again only holding up a sign with "Morality!" scrawled on it.
The argument for Christian morality is fraught. There were moral arguments for Manifest Destiny, and bodies litter residential schools across the US and Canada. Those "arguments for," were the moral gold standard in their times. Things change. Even the Church.
What morality has changed?
I always look forward to these discussions with Paulogia. To me, he seems to be one of the most formidable apologists in the atheist community (hardly any Christians respond to him) so I would be curious about his input.
search on youtube, paulogia, otangelo. Paul failed miserably.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Dude, the next time you succeed in a debate it'll be the first time you succeed in anything other than making a fool of yourself.
@@sjhoneywell6235 do better, and answer my question that i asked Paul: How can we explain our existence without a creator ?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Big Bang cosmology--for which there is evidence--explains the universe.
Evolution--for which there are absolute mountains of evidence in multiple fields and to which you are stupidly blind--explains our existence.
But I've heard enough of your babble, Otangelo, to know that you're resistant to facts and not worth as much effort as I've alread put in. Now you can go tell people that you "won" this exchange because we both know you're going to do that regardless.
Claiming any god as the answer only kicks the can down the road and prevents any attempt at inquiry.
The majority of people usually don't respond to Paulogia because much of his content really isn't worth it. His primary focus, most of the time, is in superficial apologetics that no one upon the academic level would accept (primary example of this is his AiG series and his rebuttals against J. Warner Wallace).
Frank always goes back to WWII even though we're talking about Star wars and comic book movies. You could just build a Frank AI and have it spit out the same old talking points if he isn't even going to change his analogies for the discussion at hand. We're not talking about soccer, we're talking about Star wars
He's just a John Wayne as Jebus Opie from Mayberry.
20:30
Paul’s face when Frank explained how Christianity is based on evidence, lol. Obviously, Paul has different criteria for evidence.
well yes, we want evidence, not stories, if frank had evidence then we'd all be christians and frank, or whoever would have a nobel. are you saying there is evidence of ANY of the stories about god or jesus cos we'd all like to see that.
@@psicologomiguelcisneros i can, wanna start? religion was invented around 50,000 years ago, which seems like a long time, but humans, in whatever form, were
looking after mothers and babies, caring for the elderly and sick, feeding each other and generally being decent
to each other so that they thrived for up to 5 MILLION years before that, religion borrows morality from secular
societies.
@@psicologomiguelcisneros ah, you're an attention seeking troll, sorry to have replied, you carry on chasing motorcycles.
@@HarryNicNicholas
What are your criteria for evidence and recognize as evidence for God?
MAN I’m stealing that referee analogy. That is damn good.
I enjoyed this debate, a friendly discussion and some interesting thoughts from both sides.
What’s the series Justin is referring to around 48:40, with the thought experiments around determinism etc?
paulogia is too polite, both frank and justin are pond scum, almost but not quite the most dishonest two faced apologists in the circuit.
I'm impressed and pleased this discussion remained so friendly. I'm an atheist and I'm so glad to have Paulogia represent "my side." Paul is an incredibly nice and generous person, and it doesn't pain me a bit to have to admit that aspect of his personality probably says a lot about his christian upbringing....
51:42 this response from Paul got a good chuckle out of me. Hits the nail on the head.
Unless the perfect person exists...
@@jozefk8948 maybe. Or lazy writers. Question is which is more likely
@@DeusEx_Machina that is not the point of the argument. No matter what do you think about the personality of Jesus, the fact is that modern superheroes and movie epic characters are inspired by Christ in his mission
@@Deividdel89 the fact is that you, at best, misunderstand the meaning of the word fact. And, at worst, are trying to conceal your own doubt with unsubstantiated certainty.
good ethics and decent human behaviour have nothing to do with appeasing a celestial being..it is for the common wellbeing of society or else it would be chaos every day.
Who deceives what is the common wellbeing?
EX: Folks argued this for society when Abolitionists spoke up. If there is nothing beyond this argument, why should a slave owner change his mind?
Frank was intelligently outmatched here.
Disagree.
@@joshs2986 I guarantee Paul knows the Bible and star wars better than frank. Given the topic frank was demonstrably outmatched
@@joshs2986 Paul won competitions as a youth for quoting scripture, he basically knew the Bible front to back. Luckily for him and us he started studying it from an unbiased opinion.
@@brickwitheyes1710 ah but friend
I guarantee you that your wrong.
I'm just having fun here. Making a point that people can watch a debate and have different conclusions. So I find it a waste to just write: X person who won.
Although I enjoy Paul's clarity and his tone throughout the debate.
I think Frank's points on the moral argument were quite decent. Amongst others.
@@brickwitheyes1710 his arguments for the most parts are appeals to authority and emotion.. Paul got the best of him here
We differentiate by the way in which a group goes about getting to their goals.
Tapdancer Turdrek at his dishonest best
How is he being dishonest?
@@FuddlyDud oh dear 🤣
@@midlander4
I am genuinely curious since I'd say he isn't very nuanced in his position, but not dishonest.
Sooo, how is he being dishonest? :/
@@FuddlyDud sigh
@@midlander4
Ok...do you know why he is dishonest compared to just being ignorant or mistaken? :/
I ask because intent is VERY difficult to prove in law and I am wrapping up my legal education. Soooo, when I hear someone claim the fella is dishonest over mere mistake, well, I want to see the evidence that shows said specific intent. :)
It's amazing that Frank wasn't totally obnoxious but he did have his Frank Turek moments such as pretending he couldn't understand how a story could be exaggerated or Twisted into a beneficial manner from actual historical accounts how walking in Shallowater became walking on water I'll bring some wine to some poor people over the years became he turned water into wine so on and so forth how could oral tradition stories possibly get convoluted or completely turn into something they were not originally how could that possibly happen?
Speaking of obvious fictions recycling old stories, let's talk about the bible using the epic of gilgamesh flood story 🤣
I don't know any scholar in the appropriate area that puts forth this claim. Can you tell me where your getting this from? Happy to be shown wrong
@@joshs2986Here are the basic premises for the claim.
1. The epic of gilgamesh predates the old testament.
2. The epic of gilgamesh contains a great flood caused by the gods
As to go as far as claiming that the old testament writers copied it from the epic, I haven't looked into it. But overall it just feeds onto the theme of: humans have similar shared myths that they gravitate to.
@@Fernando-ek8jp I feel you ignored what I said.
Also, you can have two accounts and actually believe they aren't copies of each other.
For instance they can both be versions of actual events.
If that is the case I'd just argue that the biblical narrative is the correct one.
@@joshs2986 Because you were, and still are, having a completely separate argument that's not related to what I wanted to say. I am not, in any of my comments, claiming that Christians are wrong. I just have issue with what Frank said because I consider it a very flawed analogy.
@@joshs2986 just to make it perfectly clear: I stand by my first comment even under the assumption that Christianity is 100% true, and that the accounts of the Bible are completely accurate.
Because most of us know of history not through being witnesses, but of stories being recorded and passed down.
Nice one for the open comments
Pretty sure that as much as Star Wars has anything to do with Christianity George Lucas meant for The Emporer to represent god, Darth Vader was Jesus and the rebels were representative of pagan religions and the force was the pantheistic idea. Ironically or not Christianity in star Wars is represented as/by the bad guys 🤷
Do you have any sources to substantiate that claim? Like, did George Lucas actually say that? Or is this just your interpretation?
If the Nazis won they would have been right.
Frank shouldn't reference the Nazis murdering gays as wrong given the track record of his God.
What does Jesus say to do for our enemies?
You are referring to the Old Covenant for the ancient Hebrews. Just like a new lease, it doesn’t bind to all who accept the new. :)
Is Frank’s argument really humans like fiction and superheroes, much like this story in an old book that’s very popular. BUT that story is true and the others are not cause I like it and I say it’s true, so it must be? Lol
Wow, Frank got dominated in this one. Much better case and more convincing by paulogia.
Remember, for hundreds of thousands of years, humans were living with small groups of relatives. We did not evolve within huge nation-states.
yeah this is why the garden of eden and the fall of man in the bible actually seems legit! science always seems to lead back to god.
@@m76353 -/wooosh-
@@wishusknight3009 tf you mean "whooosh"? this shit isn't over my head if thats waht you're tryna say lol
"garden of eden" and "the fall of man" is basically the same story anthropologists tell about the transformation a "hunter-gatherers" (eden) into the "agricultural revolution" (the fall)
@@m76353 Well, the scientists that I see use terms like Mitochondrial Eve and such, are using them in a colloquial sense. As it seems fitting to use as a cultural reference, not that it points to creation or the bible.
Together with midichlorians there was another addition to the nature of The Force, Qui Gon drops a line about the "Living Force" which at the very least has a will, so is less impersonal, although still far from a maker. Then in RotS we have the "netherworld of the Force"
Novelization explained it better. The "Living Force" was a reference to a philosophical point of view Qui-Gon Jinn had and was a schism forming in the order.
There was the Unifying Force, which is what Yoda teaches. More Buddhist in its philosophies which spoke about how the known physical world was in fact a sort of trap that you were supposed to transcend behind. To remove attachments to the physical world so that you can achieve enlightenment in the existence beyond.
"The Living Force" was a philosophy instead talking about how the nature of the Force was to create connections between all living things. And that as agents of the Force their ultimate point of view was to seek oneness with existence, instead of transitioning beyond existence. That fostering connections of friendship, love, and interests in others is the way to enlightenment, rather than rejecting them.
It was fundamentally incompatible doctrines that the Jedi Council and the older Jedi all followed in the Unifying Force, while Qui-Gon Jinn followed the Living Force along with some of the younger Jedi (and thus also Obi-Wan's line about how Qui-Gon could have already been on the council if he'd just agree to do things their way, etc).
And why he was so excited about Anakin as the Prophecy to "Bring balance to the Force". After all, they didn't know Sith even existed at that point to be concerned with the dark side. It was the idea that somehow the Prophecized Anakin would find a way to bridge the gap between the two otherwise incompatible philosophies.
... I just found that stuff fascinating myself and while there were snippets of it in the movie,I would have liked more of that religious introspection and conflict in doctrine than we got I suppose.
I would love to hear their opinions on the show Midnight Mass on netflix.
this show was basically like a biblically themed debate except written in the form of a monster movie. the show definitely gave the atheists the advantage in its philosophical conclusions, but seems like it should be discussed more. plus i noticed its almost always trending on netflix in the trending section so assume its popular enough
One of my favorites
Frank Turek's question that asks why human dive on the bomb to save another. Would be a same question if instead we were to ask why would a water buffalo choose to stand ground against a predator, to help save another buffalo, instead of turning tail and running away to save itself. Same thing with Elephants too, if we were to ask why they cooperate together to help their elephant clans, rather than to just turn tail and run away to safety for themselves and focus on merely seeking to save themselves alone, and so on. However, there's not one of the beings (human,buffalo,elephant ) what would have AVOIDED their extinction, unless they'd been the type of being what would NATURALLY attempted to turn toward social cooperation, together, as a systems whats "fittest for survival" . Right?. And us human are still following the trait we had originally acquired earlier on in time too. We are not so different than the buffalo,elephants and others too, in this sense. Why is it that Frank cannot see this?. Does Frank ever sit and wonder why "it is" that the buffalo and elephant choose to do what they do. Surely Frank hadn't been led to believe that the buffalo and elephant might read bibles too (like human do). Had he?
I suspect Frank might have set of to find evidence that evolution would only ever be "dog eat dog" cold hearted type nasty thing what they teach people to believe in church groups. However, there's miles of scenario in nature , what provide us evidence to suggest that acts of altruism can also be beneficial to beings "as a whole" for survival (rather than to face extinction)
So altruism can also still be motivated by a "form of selflessness". Ie:The selfish urge of "beings" to seek "a way" to survive
Still selfish foundation, and yet can also have become the precursor for something "good" like what us human by now end up "to think of" as "morals"
Perhaps Frank be better to accept that evolution OBVIOUSLY isn't necessarily the stone cold hearted matter of like what Franks "been mislead" to believe it is. Right? . If Frank was already SET ON (determined) attempting to try his best to "complicate" the situation (to try to fit God into the picture), then he'd have already been acknowledging this by now
The same similar traits have also arisen in other beings existences. Its not only among human who are the beings considered to be far more aware, either. So perhaps its "something" far more regular than what people of faith would care to stop to consider ?
There are definitely a few species that are solo and in their case they really don’t have much empathy.. but when we look at other tribalistic animals, we see governing systems, etc (“Pecking order”, “Alpha wolf”). These systems may not be as water tight as we describe, but a mix of selfish and selfless behavior is what we see many animals do today.
Nature is at a weird in between of a completely altruistic group and a Nash equilibrium for a lot of tribal species, but it works. You view your tribe as allies , not enemies
@@jhmejia yes because its also still random . Although nature provides a type of driving force in itself. Like with the way how there's been extinctions caused by nature .Continental drift too. While those are possibly random events they'd still act to cause a certain outcome which some being might then face and proceed to attempt to survive with. In amongst those happenings is when one lot of beings may end up to go one way, while some others take the opposite approach. But its common. That's whats clear. Isn't it John. Its quite clear to us that there are in fact a number of different groups of beings, other than ourselves , what all adopt altruism as a integral part of their survival plan. That's what Frank Turek has possibly overlooked. Frank needs to alter his claim that beings might turn into "dog eat dog" minded beings, unless they'd believe in a God. This claim that Frank makes, is terribly misguided and lacking in insight, as it must overlook so much of this evidence we see in nature with regard to beings other than ourselves.
@@slimdusty6328 yup there’s a lot of altruism in nature and it’s not just a human thing.
If it was false it would have been easy to stop at the start...
Wow. I mean, if Christianity was the only religion in the world I might concede the point. Or maybe he thinks all religions are true.
Welcome to the Turek Trotts. Similar to the gish gallop, only worse.
So evidence that points to ultimate truth is invalid?
@@konroh2 If there was only one religion claiming to have evidence pointing to ultimate truth, you might have a point. But given that different religions have claims of ultimate truth, and within pretty much every religion you have different sub groups claiming to know the proper interpretation of said ultimate truth, I personally have a hard time knowing which of them is the one, single, perfect, ultimate truth.
@@Fernando-ek8jp Let's start small then. Do you believe that there is one God or many? Do you believe God is love and Good?
@@konroh2 I don't think there are any gods.
Do you believe there are many gods?
The fact that Turek thinks being "locked in agnosticism" regarding unfalsifiable religious claims is a bad thing tells you everything you need to know about him.
What do you mean by that?
"well [if what paul is saying is true] we're just locked in agnosticism"
yes, that's why we're agnostics
and thus atheist by proxy
@@heethanthen706 by proxy, yes
That idea may be why you are
@@thetannernation yes, "we" refers to me and people that hold similar views
I'm a Gnostic Atheist because religious/spiritual beliefs are indistinguishable from delusion. For Naturalistic theory that's delusional I point to Simulation Theory.
I feel like Paul knows more about the subject of Frank's own book than frank does!, so maybe that's why Frank keeps trying to srgue the general moral argument .Frank can't go head to head with Paul on the show's actual topic, so he circles back to his comfortable wheel house where he feels more knowledgeable. Even the host tried to keep frank on topic. Frank's new book must be pretty amateur then.
Frank really wanted to hold onto the idea that the Gospels are eye-witness accounts. That's not what the evidence shows, the fact that no church father before 160ACE quotes from the Gospel by name, and quotes them as if they have no name is not expected under traditional authorship. The fact that the only copies of the Gospels we have with titles is from after 160ACE is also not expected under traditional authorship. The fact that an alleged eyewitness (Matthew) copies *word-for-word in a language different to the one they spoke* from a non-eyewitness (Mark) is also not expected under traditional authorship.
This all makes a lot more sense as a codification of an oral tradition.
They are presented as eyewitness accounts and speak of eyewitnesses... so are you saying they are lying?
@@jessebryant9233unfortunately I don't know of any reason to think they are presented as eye-witness accounts, the authors never identify themselves by name, and never say "I, Matthew, saw this" for example, could you let me know what it is that points to the Gospels being presented as eyewitness accounts?
In terms of the lying, I don't think the disciples wrote the Gospels, so I think they were authored by sincere believers. These people weren't lying, they were writing what they and others had come to believe through the oral tradition that predated the Gospels.
@@simonodowd2119
You don't know any reason? So them claiming it doesn't count? _Hey, why should I believe whatever it is that you do and were there any eyewitnesses to support your beliefs?_
Yeah, the gospels are believed to have been written either by the disciples or those close to them-those who knew them. And when it comes to the rest of history from antiquity, if you wish to dismiss the gospels, then you pretty much have to dismiss literally everything from antiquity. There are no accounts more supported by extant manuscript evidence or even resources so close to the actual events or that are supported by other sources.
@@jessebryant9233 can you please point me to where the Gospel authors claim to be eyewitnesses?
I have referenced readily available historical records, I don't need eyewitnesses when there is data available....
Does the number of manuscripts somehow make what's contained in it more true?
@@simonodowd2119
Well, I'm thinking NT, not just Gospels, so Acts is the first thing that comes to mind.
And so first you act like a lack of eyewitnesses is an issue and now you claim you don't need 'em? _What?_
More true? Literally NOBODY is so much as suggesting any such thing. But what it does show is consistency-something you simply can't appeal to for other events of antiquity-because the records are not as close to the events or as plentiful.
Now, back to my question to you... _What does Simon say in answer to that?_
Jesus would have never have made it to Golgotha had he been openly claiming to be god (something only John really introduces to the narrative). He would have been showered with stones and left for cardion cross. As soon as that claim passed his lips.
I find it interesting that Turek notes that people love a fantasy story, but doesn't realize that he continues to tell one that is very popular. Greatest story ever told, indeed.
Ahhh! You’ve killed us Christians!
@@sidtom2741 Boring...try again
@@Quinn37 so facile to call something fantasy
@@sidtom2741 check out pew research, christianity is killing itself. frank is helping, if you can't see he's a book salesman and a carnival act, other christians can, apologists like frank and koukl and braxton, and j warner are the reason people are leaving the church, not only can they see they are just spin doctors for god, but no one wants homework, especially science, theology and philosophy homework. they just want hymns.
@@sidtom2741 er, fantasy fiction is fantasy, what? religion is fantasy too, if you think the bible is a better, more convincing story than any other religious fantasy book, you ought to do english comprehension over.
And just like all those hero's before Jesus Christianity just borrowed.
Objective moral values are useless as a concept without a way to figure out what they actually are. We've had Christian dominance for 1500 years in Europe and only within the last decades they figured out that same-sex couples marrying and having sex isn't sinful or degranged at any larger scale (unless you're a devout Catholic, the Church calling it "gravely immoral" in 2003 as an example, or any number of other bigoted and homophobic denominations who still oppses it in all forms). Despite all of that supposedly being in their book written with the intention to offer clear moral guidance.
Imagine screaming the sky is blue for all those centuries, while those who invoke your name insists it's red. That's Christians on countless moral issues over the years.
I speak from experience but it's amazing how ignorant Christians are about their own faith. I am convinced Christians believe because is makes them feel better. They didn't start believing because they critically compared religions and examined scripture. Christians emotionally decide to believe and cognitive dissonance and confirmation biases take over from there. I never thought I would ever leave the Jesus train but here I am finally free from the shackles of religion.
We can't even say that Jesus was the original model of the "hero" as there are other Gods and Demi-Gods who go through the heroes story and even end up sacrificing themselves before him (Heracles, for example).
Also, around the 50 minute mark... anyone else thing Turek is describing his lover as opposed to the hateful jackass in the bible?
When is Paul going to write his book?
You took the words right out of my mouth. Paul has an exceptional story to write. I think his humility gets in the way. Either way his life is an example of "I wanted to know the truth."
the gospel writers never claimed to be witnesses to the event!!! (1:12:00)
And we still don't know who they are.....
The only one writer who might not have seen the events was Paul. He has many could have witnessed the events and denied them like so many.
God’s best on our quest for absolute truth
It's an old video, but I'm often behind. Even so, Frank Turek did not conduct himself well. Repetition of your original point in the face of potential counter-arguments or counter-evidence is not a rebuttal. Similarly, failure to listen to and account for what the person across from you has said is not a dialog, it's a monologue with a noisy audience (Turek monologuing and Paul as the "noisy audience"). Finally, the ending Gish Gallup from Turek, followed by his constant interruptions of Paul to nit-pick individual points demonstrated an inconsistent standard - both of communication and of argumentation.
Yeah, Turek is not very nuanced in most cases. It doesn’t help either that Paul is also not very nuanced on the moral argument, leading to probably the most fun part being, well, kinda repetitive. :P
If you help your tribe survive, the genes you share with your relatives will survive.
That doesn't work well as an explanation if you don't get to share your genes, or if your genes get outbred. Which in the early days of any sort of altruistic development, would be the case
In my experience, my dreams are essentially about moral/ethical issues though sometimes their contents emerge as bizarre and convoluted.
get a new therapist.
I love how both Frank and the host keep throwing out "supports" for the truth of the bible but don't let Paul address them.
This
There is no need for absolutes in morality because the goals even intersubjectively agreed upon remain situational. The same action can be considered morally just dependent on circumstance. To use Turek's example Nazis engaged in execution for their reasons, the allies engaged in executions for theirs. What grounding beyond subjective preference grounded in basic biological game theory does one need. It is objective only in the sense the rules are known and agreed upon. None of this gets us absolute morality grounded in a prescriptive Big Boss. The Boss still needs to been demonstrated to exist and of course individuals and collectives under divine command theory (if we concede to free will for argument's sake) they can still disagree with 'God' or the Rule Maker's rules were there to be the evidence such an entity exists. No form of morality can prove the positive ontology of the Law Giver. A broad church social contract is enough to label this action in this circumstance as objective within the terms of said contract. As to the 'savior' archetype begining with Jesus and/or Yahweh, how did we come up with historical soteriological heros antecedent to those characters appearance? It doesn't mean a Christian god isn't real. But it means they had cultural predecessors for their characters mythical or otherwise. Let's say okay Superman is based on Jesus (spurious as the connective narrative tissue may be), how could we say that Jesus is the archetype for Thor? Isn't it self evident that comic book Thor is based on the Ancient mythological ( or actual Thor)? It's definitionally, tautologically the case, in name and largely In deed. The hero's journey archetype seems to predate written history and there remain humans to this day who would have the greatest possible being concept potentially, who have never been exposed to Abrahamic lore. It's fairly clear that the most reversed human in any tribe of primates is the archetype for the ultimate arbiter of perfection.
Frank is such a disingenuous twit. Inventing a "perfect" character is easy, it's making one that's flawed that's difficult. The are several versions of Batman, or Spiderman, or Robin Hood, or Romeo and Juliet, yet they all contain the essential elements that make those characters who they are.
@fred_derf
In defense of Turek, we think the contemporary ‘perfect’ characters are actually flawed in their self righteous and arrogant approaches. The problem is that the writers don’t realize this and wrote them as adored by everyone…which we catch on to and have problems with. :)
EX: Rey is, on paper, a great hero by skills/feats. However, in context of who she should be, the execution is horrible since she is contradictory (ex: grows up neglected and isolated for most of her life, yet chipper, earnest, honest, lighthearted, etc.).
For Jesus, I don’t see the same contradictions nor is the context making it improbable/impossible for him to exist. I think it would be super easy to mess all of this up, so maybe you can show me where the Gospels do just that. :)
@@FuddlyDud You've missed the point. People don't write perfect characters (although Superman, Captain America, etc. come close) because, 1. it's lazy writing, and 2. they don't make interesting characters.
The jesus character is not an interesting character, if it wasn't for the religion that grew up around him no one would care about him.
_"For Jesus, I don’t see the same contradictions [...]"_
You don't see the contradiction between the jealous, vengeful, murderous, ragefull, vain character in the first part of the book with the humble, pacifist in the second part? And please, don't tell me that jesus and Yahweh are separate characters when it's made clear that they are the same singular god.
@@fred_derf
" You've missed the point. People don't write perfect characters (although Superman, Captain America, etc. come close) because, 1. it's lazy writing, and 2. they don't make interesting characters."
That's not totally true, for we do have 'perfect' side characters regularly. You are conflating characters overall with protagonists/main characters of a story. Heck, you list 2 near 'perfect' characters and they are well beloved due to the hardship they overcome (can compare to Jesus)! :)
"The jesus character is not an interesting character, if it wasn't for the religion that grew up around him no one would care about him."
Captian America is interesting because, despite his small frame, he has will and mind that sets him apart. This is what makes his pursuit, even as he goes against bigger threats, so enjoyable. :)
Similarly, Jesus can be seen as interesting as he stands up to the more radical Jewish sects that ultimately concludes with the ultimate triumph. You can of course be disinterested, but that is itself a complex (interesting) narrative you can unpack and debate. :)
@@fred_derf
"You don't see the contradiction between the jealous, vengeful, murderous, ragefull, vain character in the first part of the book with the humble, pacifist in the second part? "
Nope, but am open to go through citations with you! :)
"And please, don't tell me that jesus and Yahweh are separate characters when it's made clear that they are the same singular god."
No, I am neither Mormon nor a JH. :P
I see them as one character, one real person that lived. However, since his life is written as a story, we can just stick to the claim of his "perfect" character and not address historicity. :)
NOTE: Paul's point on him being "perfect" due to legendary development is a much better position if you want to switch to that right now. ;)
Clearly Frank Turek has not read The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros All except the ones that weren't. Just because someone grew up in a culture doesn't mean anything. It doesn't make it true or untrue. It just colors how we see the world and influences our biases. What about the Eastern cultures? Islamic cultures? What about the rest of the fucking world. There are motifs that exist in all cultures, beyond our incredibly myopic, as well as our arrogantly Euro centric view of the world. Also, don't ever presume to tell me what I do or do not understand.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros so many presumptions. Atheism has never, nor ever will be a religion. It is merely a position on a single proposition: not being convinced that any gods exist. I don't care whether Joseph Campbell was an atheist or not. That wouldn't change his field of study or his expertise in comparative myology and literature. It also amuses me that you keep bringing up Shakespear. Had an ex who did Summer Stock for over a decade. Plays filled with murder, jealousy, betrayal, murder, subterfuge, incest. Kinda like another book which I can't think of at the moment but it will come to me. Which of those themes is particularly or specifically Christian? Sure, Christianity is at the top now but that just means a bunch of white folk conquered and enslaved a bunch of nonwhite folk while suppressing their native cultures and religions. The Muslims, however, are hot on your tail, which may mean your time at the top is coming to an end. And even adding your two numbers together that barely represents 54% of the world population. Us Non-religious folks are at 15%. Which brings us to 70% and that leaves 30% of the whole rest of the world. SO as smug as you want to be, you haven't won yet, and even if you do it will have had little or nothing to do with anything you personally have done. And on that note, Good night sweet prince, parting is such sweet sorrow.
Anyone who thinks fictional stories are evidence for only 1 of those stories being true still has some important thinking ahead of them...
A lot of the fictional Superheroes are based on ancient gods. Not saying that gods existed because I don’t believe in a god or gods. But I do believe in extraterrestrials and our ancestors from ancient times could have been visited by extraterrestrials and would’ve thought of them as gods.
when you look at science the future starts to look a lot less like star wars and a lot more biblical. god > interstellar travel
True, but evidence doesn’t have to be ignored just because it can support multiple conclusions.
@@Hhjhfu247 nothing. Advanced extraterrestrials were considered gods
@@Hhjhfu247 but modern people think of god as a person or a Devine being that created us and everything in the universe. Religions worship something or someone that never existed. There’s no heaven or hell. I think Jesus was a real person but he was not a son of god. He was a master manipulator of people just like that leader of that cult group called Heavens Cult. Jesus said the right things for people to believe him.
Jesus is a markedly different character in each gospel and in Paul's reckoning. Make a list of his characteristics in each then mark off every time he has differing attitudes, actions... Overall attributes; merits and flaws.
In most heroic stories, the hero makes sacrifices for tangible reasons, ie stopping a bad guy or throwing a bomb into the Sun. With Jesus, you have to add a lot of theological interpretation to make his death heroic and not simply tragic.
Very good point. You know, my pet goldfish, Charlie, died the other week. It was tragic. But then I reminded myself that he died to save me from the Snorgolax that was hiding in my closet waiting to punish me for eating cookies in bed. Mind you, I've never seen the Snorgolax, nor do I have any evidence that a Snorgolax exists or existed, but I feel great comfort knowing that I am saved from eternal torture from said Snorgolax.
What stupid idea that you can't invent something that's better than life. Such a person would be legendary and exactly thats secret behind Jesus: He is a Legend. It combined so many sage personalities of the greek world. That us why nowadays historians really look into the ancient texts with the right tools. Look at the Environment, that says Greek, not really Jew, which also explains why the New Testament was written in Greek, not in the Language that the hero spoke.
It's all the tradition of the 'hero's journey' literary device.
It happened long before Jesus - notably Homer's The Odyssey by 8th century BC.
When pointed out, believers will accept that it's a great way to mythologize and create legends for the other narratives; except the 'hero' they believe.
How about the idea that it points to ultimate meaning? The hero's journey is a journey for meaning. Also, while I do think that Homer predates Jesus, the fact is that we only have manuscripts from 1000 years after Homer, so it's possible that the Odyssey actually comes after Jesus (based on the textual evidence).
@@konroh2 - Do actually believe that?
Why or why not?
@@tommykiger1871 I think that the element's of the hero's journey is a common theme among humanity, and it really goes back to the earliest human consciousness understanding that we are reflections of a divine Creator.
@@konroh2 - How did you make that connection?
@@tommykiger1871 From wrestling with meaning and significance, from knowledge gained from experience and rationality.
Actually wish they’d talked more about Star Wars
Frank keeps bringing the moral argument back to the example of Hitler as an example of why we need a source of "objective good and evil", yet the Nazis were Christians. I would argue that Hitler is evidence against an all-knowing, all-powerful source of moral objectivism. Since anyone can use their own perception of what their god wants to happen as a basis for their actions, there really isn't an objective source of what is right or wrong. It still comes down to what one believes is right or wrong, based on their own cultural experience and expectations. To say that determinism or a lack of some supernatural authority to guide us lead to having no real basis to judge what is wrong or what is right ignores that survival of our species and our natural sense of empathy which evolved as part of our nature as a social species is enough to for us to make moral decisions. We can use the metric of what causes harm or lessens the well-being of our society as being a bad thing; and what leads to flourishing and improving the well-being of our society as being a good thing. We don't want pain or death to inflicted upon us. We can easily imagine that others wouldn't want those things done to them either. I think we can see this social motivation being played out across all sorts of human cultures and societies with different religious beliefs throughout history around the world.
It could be argued that religious beliefs have cause more objective suffering among humanity, simply because the religious believed theirs was the only true objective morality. In the New World, as well as in Africa, European colonists inflicted terrible suffering and deprivation upon the Indigenous Peoples by the imposition of colonial religious beliefs. Social structures which worked for centuries, no better or worse than the European models, were destroyed and cultural values were left in ruins, from which people are still struggling with the aftereffects to this day.
The simple fact is that if there is a god who is a source of objective morality, that god, for some reason, has not made his/her/its intentions clear. We are left with vague, cryptic, often contradictory writings purported to be the word of this or that deity. Open to such a wide variety of subjective interpretations, these writings cannot be counted upon as a truly reliable source of guidance. So, in the end, it is still up to us to determine what we believe is right or wrong. The real danger is when we fool ourselves into thinking we are acting on the imperatives of some righteous authority, leading us to perhaps cause great harm in the name of our religion. It gets even worse if we can then absolve ourselves from any real responsibility by saying God made us do it.
It's even worse for him. The old testament is full of instances of God empowering other nations to "punish" Israel and the Jewish people, where "punish" means exile, enslave, and brutally slaughter by the tens of thousands at a crack. In fact, God has commanded multiple genocides.
I'm not saying any of that is a good thing. Far from it. It's horrible. My point is though, that Hitler thought he was doing "God's work", and the mass murders he committed are on brand for God. If Frank wants to use the bible and the moral argument, he basically is forced to side with Hitler. Of course he will deny it, but that's straight to where the moral argument leads. If you want to say "God determines what's moral", you have surrendered any moral argument against the Holocaust.
This is low iq
He can't see how a fictional character could become so influential. Hmm. Let's look at the impact Casino Royal had on the interest of people in Poker, look at the amount of people ´who "know" what house they would be in in Hogwarts. And those are stories nobody believes to actually be true.
My guess is that Turek doesn't believe all the stories in the Quran are true or the stories about the Hindu Gods. How did they become so influential? Because people in power either believed them or saw value in perpetuating them. That's it. It's not that hard.
"Do starwars and superheros point to Jesus?" No, we've had hero narratives/legends long before that.
You're answering if they were inspired by Jesus. Pointing to can be done before the event happened in this case, since prophesy is a thing in Christianity.
@@michaelmiky11 no. Im saying we've had hero narratives before the bible even existed. Longer than the bibles supposed timeline says we've existed.
@@Aging_Casually_Late_Gamer Not sure how that's relevant. If you say that the Bible is wrong about the timeline of Earth, then there's no point even having the hero discussion because the conclusion is already assumed. Otherwise, the Bible starts at the beginning of time, so all events afterwards are included.
@@michaelmiky11 it's relevant because we already know that hero stories existed long before the bible even came into being.
The conclusion isnt "assumed" we already know it.
@@Aging_Casually_Late_Gamer Is it possible to write true things about the past?
Right at the end, Frank busts out "unintended consequences" and Justin cuts it off before Paul could respond. Lol
It's amazing how the top apologists can spout the exact same nonsense as the worst ones. Jesus, a unique, perfect and consistent character described by eye witnesses? xD
It's almost like both the ceiling and bar _have_ to be bolted straight to rock bottom with these people and their identical crap arguments to preconceived conclusions, whether they are (young earth) creationists or not...
Or, the details are consistent because they are true.
Fun fact: even creationist among themselves can't agree on the details. Old, young, flat, even in their own echo chambers...
@@noneofyourbusiness7055 Pauloga that’s one good point about predictability showing truth.
On to your point, the Bible predicts that people are blinded by the truth because of their love of evil.
Why did Paul leave Christianity? He says in this vid that he came to the conclusion that everything is determined by the natural means. Could it be that the Temptations at the time of his work at Lucos or Ranch helped blind him? Evidence is there for the designer and for the Bible. What what do you have to give up a few were swayed by the evidence that there is an intelligent designer who is the god of the Bible?
God’s best on our quest for truth.
Atheists are blinded because they love evil? You mean, like the ~0.1% of convicted American atheists in prisons full of theists? Paul was not blinded, like most atheists he was a theist before he _thought_ about things including the creationist pseudoscience supported by this channel. As opposed of upwards of 90% of christians "learning" to see the "truth" as gullible infants incapable of critical thinking, same as other religions. I have heard of no one who became a theist because of "evidence" (because there is no valid evidence) and instead everyone cites emotional experiences, especially in a moment of desperate clutching at straws where any nice lie would be welcomed. Of course your fairy tale says people are blinded to the truth, whoever wrote that probably knew how nonsensical the story is xD
If wrong is what I don't like, what happens when I change my mind? Then the wrong is changing all the time.
Exactly, thats why when people change their mind, often say “sorry, I was wrong”.
1:08:50 - Funny how Christians are creating legends about what Bart Ehrman has said, even while he's alive and activity refuting it.
Everything he said on the matter is in print or on film. No need for him to actively refute anything.
@@michaelmiky11 well that's fine, you can tell him to stop then.
25:30 Concerning the ontology of moral goodness:
In any society, even the Mafia, there are rules for pragmatic reasons. Probably, punishments are expected for those who fail to follow the rules. And there might be awards for those who perform very well. For each individual, the punishments should be bad, and the awards should be good. We have the tendency to avoid what is bad for us and be attracted to what is good for us. Even if we might think something is good for us, it might have very bad consequences. For instance, drug addiction.
It seems most of all people understand that concept of individual good and bad. There aren't many discussions about what is the ontology of selfishness. Selfish people want to maximize the good to themselves, as individuals, regardless of how much others have, even if others are harmed. We have morality when people have to deal with each others. In that case, we might have conflicts. It's like in any society, but for all people.
How an impartial judge would deal with that problem is the essence of moral good. Hitler might say some groups of people should be killed, because, according to him, some “race” should implement their will and maximize their imposition, and supposedly some groups are harming that “race”. But his arguments have factual mistakes and are based in selfishness. If Hitler was in any of the group are supposed to be eliminated, probably he would have a different opinion and think being killed is unfair. Even for a selfish person, being killed is bad.
Has Frank EVER read any comic book in his life??🤣🤣🤣
Superman is damn near the EPITOME of Mary Sue
And with the synoptic gospels topic.... The way that Frank failed to understand it is like when you ask someone if you could copy their homework and they say, "yeah bro, but don't copy it word for word.". These gospels literally pulled from a common source, which explains why they have a majority of the same stories.
And let's not act like Frank isn't arguing from incredulity..... "I don't understand how....", "I can't see how.....".
What's the common source of the Gospels? It fits very well that the common source is the reality of the events depicted.
@@konroh2 by common source, I mean by the reason why the first 3 books are called the Synoptic gospels.....
Mark is the earliest Gospel and the others (Matthew and Luke) copied from the author of Mark by a large amount. Damn near verbatim.
It would also suffice that this is because Mark was writing down what people where already talking about for decades. There's little to no evidence that what has been written down in the Gospels were actually true.
@@MLamar0612 Why is Mark the earliest? Scholars actually disagree. What's actually true is that there is evidence that they do rely on common sources, so there are oral traditions, personal interviews and such but there are details Luke and Matthew have that Mark seems to have copied. The evidence points to independent sources relying on common events. And there is plenty of evidence that Luke-Acts is some of the best historical 1st century writing we have. Josephus is of course more thorough, but Luke-Acts hasn't been shown to be wrong historically.
Luke Skywalker probably won't be the MOST influencial character in 200 or 2000 years but Darth Vader, Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda, the guys that made Luke as he turns out to be, are already gathering a LOT of influence. Especially Ben about the relativity of truth.
Not to mention I've seen at least twice kids asking if Jesus was Obi Wan. Yep, like in the meme.
OK that was biased. Someone made a picture in a very geeky festival of Jesus with a lightsaber.
So fiction proves fiction? That figures!
This was great. Just my kind of discussion!
I think fantasy and sci-fi stories point to or illustrate the things we don't like about the real world, the kind of nightmares we have, the kind of world we would or might like to live in, and the kinds of people we think might come to the rescue to put things right or save us from cruel monsters and tyrants.... because we want a happy ending! We want there to be people who have courage and moral integrity who don't give up and give in to temptation... People to look up to as inspirational role models (or wish we had superpowers like them!!)
So fantasy-sci-fi fans like me and many others might not just be big kids who want some escapist entertainment but also thoughtful people who wonder about the big story in the real world (if there really is one and it's not just random ups and downs!) and want it to have hope - and I haven't found more hope for the real world than the ultimate hope the Christian faith points to even though it is honest that we have a lot of hard times to go through in the mean time.
Of course we all have hopes for things to improve in the world in our own lifetimes but that's not such a certain hope it's just [somtimes tentative] optimism for temporary solutions like technology invented to solve energy problems and medicines found to treat diseases etc.
It gives encouragement and hope to see how God can change people's lives for the better and make us into better people who can do little things that might add up to making a big difference.
Trying to make analogies with fantasy heroes and Jesus does have some points about some aspects of heroism coming from this ultimate real rescue mission and incomparable character, but they are not real world stories. I think they are understood best in their own contexts because each fantasy world has its own worldview and when you have a whole galaxy or universe invented in the story like in Star Wars, that could have practically infinitely many worldviews and myths and cultures and religious beliefs of different groups in those worlds...!
Maybe criticising some fantasy works because they have a different worldview that seems in some way incompatible with our own (Christian or other) is missing the point, because to appreciate a story it needs to be understood in its own worldview which usually if not always means 'suspending disbelief'!
However much or little each story hero points to Jesus, at least I think the stories as a whole point to some aspect of reality of what we as humans feel about life and our struggles and some philosophical or moral lessons the writer wants to portray, which are likely influenced by some kind of religious or cultural background.
What about the epics and hero stories before Jesus? This narrative has been told before Christianity.
The most notable being Homer's The Odyssey - 8th Century BC.
I like a lot of what you say, even though I disagree with your conclusion about god existing.
Sure even Christianity and Judaism borrow from older stories. Far as I can tell that is the oldest part of who we are as humans. Story tellers. I love that about us honestly.
tl;dr
Thankfully it was someone like Paul who seems like a nice fellow and not someone like Dillahunty discussing who would have given it an inappropriate angry and hateful conversation.
Paul was on Dillahunty's Wednesday show recently and Paul DID cause Dillahunty to chill out a bit.
@@AnotherViewer Dillahunty would make absolutely inappropriate tone with someone like Frank who always has nice conversations. I dont think Matt was that chill, he was quite rude as he always is to the first old guy I remember. He is just awful.
@@ceceroxy2227 Yeah, I'm an atheist and I like a lot of the older Dillahunty videos, but in recent years he has become very uncharitable, rude, and quick to anger. It's not the kind of conversations I ever feel like listening to. I imagine some people become more open to an idea if someone gets up in their face and challenges them, but it's just a turnoff for me.
@@weirdwilliam8500 he is awful, the show is terrible now, it used to be just nice conversation, he is the only one in the shows history who has acted even remotely like this, he is a coward also, he could never get away talking like this to people to their face, he would have a fight on his hands, but since he has a hangup and mute button, he can do what he pleases and make himself feel powerful.
Looks like I'm not the only one who finds Matt D to be off-putting.