And YET Another Video with Scarlett

Misunderstanding Matt Slick on Purpose? · Another Video with Scarlett (excursus: Continuing with Bill Garthright) · And YET Another Video with Scarlett

10 Totally Sincere and Not at all Disingenuous Questions for Atheists
Scarlett, 13 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IowNb8CUQO0

1:46 I would say the chronology is as follows:

• BH graduated Trinity
• BH graduated Luther Rice
• BH was pastor and president of certain baptist pastors
• BH was and still is president of his former college.

4:22 I see the question is very important. Thousands of atheists, if no longer the majority, believe that we all have access (unless we blind ourselves) to facts about reality, and that Christianity offers no answer to some and an outdated answer, and Atheism or more properly Science (the actual positive religion of Atheists) has an up to date and better answer for these facts.

Braxton Hunter is taking on that challenge, by asking them to tell what these facts are.

He is also refusing a bait, by ruling out 4.5 billion years and man evolving from non-human apes (also akin but not identical to the modern great apes). That is a "fact" that Atheists agree on and he doesn't. IF they want to use Evolution, he asking them to say how it is better at explaining discovery of Lucy or Sterkfontein discoveries Taung Child and Mrs. Ples. The existence of these finds presumably being one of the facts he agrees on.

In any, and I meant serious intellectual, not hip and branched, discussion of clashing world views, the most basic precaution is to start from what the opponent agrees on, and hope the other guy does the same. Or even ask him to do so.

By the way, "we are all humans and humans can be crazy" is not an explanation of there being humans, let alone a better one than God created them.

4:46 Atheism in the sense you give the word, doesn't exist. Three different atheisms, if not more, exist, that all of them also involve positive credenda. Bear with me if I give them (and that includes yours) names that you aren't used to.

• Western Atheism involves believing Big Bang (though a few decades about a century ago steady state eternal universe was still favoured), solar system forming through gas clouds compressing by gravitation and that happening with ours 4.5 billion years ago, abiogenesis happening about a billion or two years later, leading to an evolution that finally (so far) resulted in man, who of course got mind and speech from evolutionary processes - it can be seen as part of an even larger world view called "the Scientific Worldview" and itself has some recent branches not mainstream in all of the community - ufology, transmhumanism, raelianism;
• Theravada Buddhism is an Atheism which involves appeal to very different concepts, more in common with Hinduism;
• Ancient Greek Atheism is what Demokritos, Epikouros and Lucretius stood for (also known as epicurean school);
• and it seems that Zoroastrism at one point had an atheist outlook, seeing the one from which Ahura Mazda and Ahriman emerged as spacetime, a very impersonal thing.

Atheism actually does, logically speaking, involve one positive statement : ultimate reality is impersonal, persons or what seem to be such, emerge from impersonal arrangements within it.

5:00 Is he going to say that?
I think he's simply going to tell those Atheists that Christianity has an explanation for these things, and it works, unlike what Atheists in the past have more than once said about Christianity.

5:09 No, the question is not wrong, since he's challenging individual atheists to answer it from their world view, not just from the rejection of that one claim.

5:20 Actually, God is not the author of non-Christian religions, which he enumerated, so, it does not depend on God's omnipotence.
Again, "you might just as well say magic" is one answer to his challenge - it says that the Christian explanation is not a good one, and says why. That's what he was asking for.

Julian

Yep, and that is called shifting of the burden of proof, is not about explaining why the christian 'explanation' is not good, is about why would anyone accept is a good one to begin with... Including the idea 'god is the author of christian religions' (nice no true scottman btw)

So yeah, braxton might just as well have said magic and ask the same question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Julian "that is called shifting of the burden of proof"

Not really. Burdens of proof exist in courts of law.

And in Academia.

"Including the idea 'god is the author of christian religions'"

Only one of them, Catholicism.

"might just as well have said magic and ask the same question."

Magic and God are two different explanations, since God is personal, magic is usually conceived as impersonal (and is therefore closer to the "scientific worldview" aka "materialism" "evolutionism" or "atheism").

Julian

@Hans-Georg Lundahl - Nope, burden of proof exist in argumentation, regardless if is academia or not (it is basic logic). The law also uses it because it is very useful. So no special plea for you.

- Yep, that is the claim you have to the burden for.

- LOL, trying to explain something that doesnt exist (Magic) as an excuse for something else that doesnt exist (your magical fairy) is quite impressive. You might aswell just accepted magic and your god are the same answer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Julian "that is the claim you have to the burden for."

A clarification does not constitute a claim I indend to prove. It was offered against the idea that God is equally the author of all religions, which is false. Whether it is itself true was not the discussion.

"trying to explain something that doesnt exist (Magic) as an excuse for something else that doesnt exist (your magical fairy)"

Have you considered taking courses in philosophy? It might suggest to you that there is a difference between personal and impersonal ultimate explanations. Magic falls under the second heading, precisely as materialism. It is basically far closer to your philosophy than to mine.

"just accepted magic and your god are the same answer."

Why don't you accept materialism and magic is the same answer? Big Bang, a swirling gas cloud condensing into a solar system, abiogenesis, living beings developing new cell types ... what is not magic about your materialism?

"(it is basic logic)."

Oh, you mean "a positive claim requires positive evidence"?

Not always. You see "we should trust our senses unless we have a good reason not to" is a positive claim and it doesn't require positive evidence, it is positive evidence for most of our other positive claims. You'd be better off saying "positive controversial claims require positive evidence"

Even more, we did not even have a positive claim in the challenge, except a non-controversial one : different religions exist. This means the challenge involved no controversial positive claim. It involved an invitation : I present my explanation, you present yours. THEN we treat the explanations as a matter of comparison - how well they explain it.

You are under the idiotic verging on Commie delusion that your position is non-controversial, and every single sentence it cannot predict is a positive claim, requiring positive evidence and this one to be evaluated by you while you yourself have no reckoning to give at all to anyone.

Why should I start giving my evidence when you haven't even made your case of how you intend to explain different religions?

Julian

@Hans-Georg Lundahl -Nope, a clarification is a claim on how an state of affairs actually is (regardless of how mundane this clarification is), so you still have the burden of proof there. Specially for your claim 'god is the author of christian religions'. which was offered against the idea that god is the autor of some religions, if any. So neither special plea nor moving the goalpost for you.
Whether your claim itself is true is one of the important points of discussion.

- That is an interesting take on how your special plea works, too bad these 'ultimate explanations' can be reduced to 'magical answers that dont explain anything'. So yeah, magic is closer to your philosophy than mine.

- Nope, now you are mixing up ontology with epistemology, you see, it doesnt matter what you think you receive with your senses, what matters is how you demonstrate the claims you are selling to others. Specially when your claims are controvertial/extraoridnary.
And thus, it is indeed basic logic, regardless if it is academia or not.
BTW, we already have a better adage for that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
And your "god is the author of the christian religions" is quite extraordinary/controversial. So good luck demonstrating your positive claim.
Or you can backpedal and move the goalpost like you are doing, either way, your claim will remain baseless.
And once again, asking for a counter explanation without you demonstrating yours is merely shifting the burden.

"Commie delusion" LOLOLOL. Wow, i didnt expect you go full fundietard.
Remember, only because you are used to your presupositions, doesnt mean someone who doesnt start with them is controvertial. You may as well be saying that magic a position so non-controversial that your god should be an acceptable answer too.
And you know what is the best part, even if i didnt have an answer for an observation of reality: different religions exist. That wont make your magical fairy a valid one. That is just a lame argument from ignorance.

And if that is all you have, then no wonder you keep mixing up claims and concepts and backpedalling so hard.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Julian "Nope, a clarification is a claim on how an state of affairs actually is"

On a very mundane level.

My religion certainly has explanations for diverse religions. The simple clarification is that my religion very much does NOT say "God did it" about the existence of Hinduism.

That's a very mundane level of clarification.

"Specially for your claim 'god is the author of christian religions'."

Wasn't even my claim. I just clarified what my claim involves about what religions you can NOT make God responsible for. We do NOT believe God made either Hinduism or Lutheranism.

And I didn't intend to make a discussion about that part of a claim, just, very simply, very mundanely, to clarify what I was very clearly NOT saying.

"Whether your claim itself is true is one of the important points of discussion."

Not of THIS discussion, which invites a comparison between Atheism and specifically Christian Theism.

"'magical answers that dont explain anything'"

I don't think that is an accurate resumé of how even a world view with magic as its basis works. The "don't explain anything" means only wouldn't be accepted as a scientific explanation, which again resumes to your real positive world view (as that of so many other Atheists) is "Science rules" ...

"what matters is how you demonstrate the claims you are selling to others."

Well, wait till I make any, especially before accusing me of mixing ontology and epistemology. By the way, epistemology is the direction of proof and ontology the direction of explanation. That's why I keep these separate.

"we already have a better adage for that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence""

Actually not better. Extraordinary claims, like any other (except the non-controversial ones, like trusting the senses), require adequate evidence.

"And your "god is the author of the christian religions" is quite extraordinary/controversial."

The invitation again was not for me to offer an explanation, and for you to start requiring evidence before I have even finished doing that, without offering any explanation of your own.

"Wow, i didnt expect you go full fundietard."

Perhaps you counted on more congeniality between us, will not happen. I could of course block you, but could I simply politely ask you to leave me alone with your toxicity? I am willing to discuss with Atheists, but that doesn't mean each Atheist, including the most toxic ones.

"that magic a position so non-controversial that your god should be an acceptable answer too."

Not even what I was after. God, sheer matter, sheer magic - these three fundamental explanations contradict. Each is in that sense controversial.

However, the invitation was not for you to assess whether my answer or explanation was acceptable, but simply to start comparing. You seem dead set on avoiding such a polite discussion.

"different religions exist."

If I were speaking to a more polite person, I'd invite him to give his explanation for this fact (indeed shared between our two worldviews) before we start hacking at each other's explanations. But that kind of procedure was apparently too polite for you.

5:39 Other fields? Is Atheism a field now? A few minutes ago, it was one negative answer to one single question.
He actually just adressed your point. And the one field where you most often get answers consistent with Atheism is Science. Lot's less in Literature and Philosophy, since these are often done by Theists, notably lots of Christians over the last 2000 years. Psychology is less consistent than science, even less consistently atheist, but it is mainly on the side of Atheism.

5:48 If Atheism likes to say:

• Christian explanations are not just wrong, but not even explanatory
• we go to the real explanations in Science and Psychology (the other fields you mentioned are not typical loves of Atheists)
• and therefore we don't need God as an explanation

THEN that is a challenge to any Christian with an Apologetics bent to answer:
"Dear Atheist, how do you Scientifically explain we can talk? How do you psychologically explain there is Hinduism? Please give me an example on one question, so we can compare!"

Braxton Hunter did precisely that in more general terms, leaving more blanks for diverse Atheists to fill in, by adressing more people in terms that fit them remarkably well, even you, as you answer the challenge.

Julian

1- that is a response to the idea that christianity offers explanations, which braxton pressupose.
2- Nope, atheist has nothing to do with science or psychology, sometimes they overlap but most of the time is because people simply love real explanations instead of made up ones.
3- the idea 'we need god as an explanation for something' is another presuposition.

So then: "Dear apologist, why should anyone pressupose your god exist to explain anything? How do you scientifically explain god's existence instead of shifiting the burden? How do you psicologically explain religions point each other as false but expect themselves to be the true ones? Please give one explanation to your presupositions to be able to begin with your points"
Braxton seems to be in love with shifting the burden as disingenously as he can, that is why the questions seem challenging, but they arent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Julian "that is a response to the idea that christianity offers explanations, which braxton pressupose."

Which he presupposeS - he's one person.

That Christianity offers explanations, whether correct or incorrect ones is obvious.

"Nope, atheist has nothing to do with science or psychology, sometimes they overlap but most of the time is because people simply love real explanations instead of made up ones"

The point is, precisely Atheism thinks Science and Psychology offer the real explanations and for instance Christianity of Mahayana Buddhism only false ones.

"the idea 'we need god as an explanation for something' is another presuposition."

He is not a pre-supper. As far as I can tell.

He is challenging to compare explanations offered by for instance the Christian God and whatever you use for an explanation.

"why should anyone pressupose your god exist to explain anything?"

Well, I gave the fact we can talk as one thing He directly explains, what is your explanation for what happened before any man opened a mouth to say a complete sentence?

"How do you scientifically explain god's existence instead of shifiting the burden?"

X proves Y in fact doesn't mean X explains Y, it means Y explains X and nothing else explains X, at least not even half as well.

To give scientific explanations for God would be involving the wrong God, the one that emerges from a material and mindless reality. I can't explain how either God nor even man (like man is talking, as mentioned) could be explained as emerging from a material and mindless reality.

"How do you psicologically explain religions point each other as false but expect themselves to be the true ones?"

Any one who holds to a false religion, by so holding would consider it a true one or the true one. And by that fact would be inclined to see other religions, normally even the actually true one as false.

"Please give one explanation to your presupositions to be able to begin with your points"

Braxton wasn't a pre-supper, as far as I saw.

"shifting the burden"

Burden of what? Burden of proof? Sorry, but he wasn't asking you to prove anything, he was asking you to explain a thing, and the two are not synonymous.

His challenge was: here are a few things to explain, give your explanation, I'll give mine and we'll compare.

@Julian By the way, are you Spanish or sth?

"psicologically" instead of "psychologically" and "pressupose", "presupositions" for "presuppose", "presupposition" ... the former could have been Italian too, but not the latter.

Julian

@Hans-Georg Lundahl - Yep, that is the point, that the offered explanations are merely pressupositions.

- Nope, atheism still has nothing to do with science and psychology, atheism simply prefers demonstrable answers instead of made up ones, like the christianity and other cults.

- Meh, the presuposition remain even if braxton doesnt fully embrace the term. The fact that he cannot demonstrate his god and engages in shifting the burden in his 'comparison' is very telling.

- Oh yes, the reason why anyone should presupose a god is because you presupose it explains something, but instead of demonstrate it does (or even the eplanation is not just another fable), you proceed to shift the burden of proof.
The question then becomes 'why would anyone presupose your god to explain for what happened before any man opened a mouth to say a complete sentence?'

- So you cannot meet the burden of your own demand because special plea, the fun part is that you admited you cannot explain how any of the two options works, but still want everyone else to accept the magical one.

- Correct, according to your own standard all religions are false, specially christianity.

- Braxton (and you) still presented many pressupositions, as far as we all can read. So the question still stands.

- Asking for an explanation still involves burden of proof. Im sorry you dont understand how english langauge works.

His challenge was basically: here are a few things i pressupose god can answer but i wont demonstrate how, now give your explanation so i can compare both without meeting my own burden.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Perhaps, the fun part is that even with my lack of grammar the questions are still understandable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Julian "the offered explanations are merely pressupositions."

Any explanation is presupposed as real in relation to what it explains.

Any proof is presupposed as observed or otherwise prove in relation to what it proves.

"atheism simply prefers demonstrable answers instead of made up ones"

So does Christianity - that's why we prefer Christianity over Psychology and various other pretended instances of "Science" - oh, you mean the Atheist considers Science and Psychology as providing demonstrable answers ... what a coincidence with my observation that Science and Psychology are what you Atheists have instead of a Bible!

"the presuposition remain even if braxton doesnt fully embrace the term."

The approaches are in fact different.

"The fact that he cannot demonstrate his god and engages in shifting the burden in his 'comparison' is very telling."

That's your totally arbitrary interpretation of what he does.

You just stated that you look to Science and Psychology for answers, I that I look for answers in Christianity. That would be a nice occasion to actually do a comparison, while you prefer, like a Commie hating Christianity, to incriminate, incriminate, incriminate and treat every single statement, regardless of it's actual function, as a "claim that needs posititive evidence" - you are toxic.

"The question then becomes 'why would anyone presupose your god to explain for what happened before any man opened a mouth to say a complete sentence?'"

Well, because the idea primates developed into men, and men invented language is simply one that will not work.

"you cannot explain how any of the two options works, but still want everyone else to accept the magical one."

Too bad you didn't copy what you were answering, so you had made clear what topic there are two options on. The one on language has a Christian explanation which is banale - since God never lacked language, ever, there was no need for it to impossibly develop or get invented, equally impossible.

"all religions are false, specially christianity."

You are clearly ill informed about my standards if you pretend that.

"So the question still stands."

Which you didn't copy, so I don't know what you mean.

"Asking for an explanation still involves burden of proof."

An explanation and a proof are at inverse directions of a sequence of facts related by both.

"Im sorry you dont understand how english langauge works."

I'm sorry you don't understand how logic works.

His challenge was basically: here are a few things i pressupose god can answer but i wont demonstrate how, now give your explanation so i can compare both without meeting my own burden."

No, his challenge was not "give your explanation, I'll compare both" his challenge was to Atheists comparing and then him answering the comparison. Both give explanations, both do the comparing. You were not even able to see the difference between a preliminary invitation and an argument offered once it starts.

"the questions are still understandable."

Not with your lack of copying what you reply to, however.

Julian

[did answer, but with so much toxicity heaping up from him, I asked him to leave off.]

6:54 No, he was not adressing someone openly and actively disbelieving, like you do, he was adressing those who say "I don't have to prove anything, I literally made no claims, I was just not convinced of one of the claims."

Hope that's not your level of disingenious!

6:59 Yeah, exactly, "shift the burden of proof" ... exactly, it's about that one.

It's comfortable to lay back and first challenge everything said, then reject every back challenge with "no, I made no positive claim, you're the only one who argues anything, you're the only one who has to actually argue what you argue" ... sorry, you maybe were that disingenious after all!

7:17 Yeah, exactly. Disbelief is not a positive claim, but sorry, it is. He was actually adressing some who push this in a more sophisticated way than you do, namely by pretending it's not disbelief, just lack of belief.

You complain of his calling some Atheists disingenious, and you turn up on the Disingenious Squad, promptly.

Last time an Atheist (or other Antitheist) said a thing like that, I had mentioned that it would be odd if a fiction somehow changed status along the way and became viewed as actual history, as part of the collective memory of past things seen and recorded and passed down. I told him, he was definitely pushing belief in one positive thing, namely the process by which tomorrows historians will be believing Spiderman is XXth C. history.

10:30 As said - no. "The burden of proof" narrative is a "heavensent" for atheist arguers who want their own arguments not analysed (while they are around, and if they are analysed without them, they can claim it is a strawman). In courts of law, there is a burden of proof. There is a rationale for the burden of proof - we prefer guilty people being free over innocent people getting punished. Those who don't like that rationale have recourse to punitive methods not requiring courts of law - like mental care (when it's forced on someone who's not seeking it out). With an ad hoc patient having to prove to the doctor he is sane, you have a situation where you can legitimately talk of "burden of proof" - but in discussions, there is no burden of proof, or if there is in philosophy, it should be applied correctly, as Atheists (representing in each case no doubt more than just their Atheism) are also making positive claims.

10:39 "The Christian is the one making the claim ..."

The Christian is typically making the claim God gave Adam language.
The Atheist (with some semi-Christian syncretists) is making the claim men evolved from creatures not human, and that they evolved language.

Both claims are positive.

10:51 The threat of a lake of fire is not meant to convert Atheists, it's meant to convert Christians to practise Christianity.

Sure, if you don't change your mind, you will likely end up in the lake of fire, but why should I bring that up to you?

My motivations for arguing may be different from yours, doesn't mean you don't have anything to prove once you are in a discussion, that's not how discussions work.

11:00 As long as you are at all involved in politics and in discussing in the public forum (hint - you published a youtube), you do have sth to justify.

Braxton is probably not adressing an atheist gardener who avoids discussions and never watches youtubes anyway.

7:49 If it's not your job at all why is this the third video by you that adresses Christian apologetics? Not your overall third, perhaps, but the third I have seen so far.
"A Ridiculous Dialogue between a Christian and an Atheist"
"Obnoxious and Tedious Questions for Atheists"
now also "10 Totally Sincere and Not at all Disingenuous Questions for Atheists"
are there any more?

JosephKano

Because it's something to do?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano Good reply.
Then she's making it her job, isn't she?

JosephKano

@Hans-Georg Lundahl only if she wants it to be her primary source of income responding to all these weak theists and the sad tired retreaded arguments they put out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano Not the least.
A hobby-job is a job too.

8:29 On regulated sex work, Catholics would agree with you - to a point.

Back in 1200's when St. Thomas spoke on the matter, there was neither syphilis nor AIDS. And the regulations involved a ban on contraception.

I am not sure regulated sex work these days would go that way, and that's one reason to not be too positive for repeating the publicity "ici on bat le trou velu" as in "we don't try to push you to perversion" - that one would have been seen in Paris back then or so.

9:50 Christians can also say "God said this, because it is good" - and that for each part of the decalogue there is a fairly compelling case on purely philosophical grounds.

12:12 "it's Science, ... not Atheism"

A k a Science is the real positive religion of Atheists.

Yes, I know some Christians are also Science believers. It's called Syncretism.

12:29 The evidence that something actually exists falls into two classes, depending on two things.
a) if the thing is visible, the evidence is it is or was seen;
b) if the thing is invisible, the evidence is what it causes.

Your argument is disingenious, unless you are willing to add "Scientists see a lot of explanatory power in electrons, but not I, it is just a word, we have no evidence [of the first type] it exists.

Let me put you another question. You are obviously outsourcing the origins question to scientists, and to scientists who are either atheists or in modern conditions under the boot of such in their institutions. Does it bother you they are outsourcing the interaction with Braxton to people like you?

The guy who says "I have an answer, or may have an answer in fifty years, on an origins question" doesn't interact with Christian criticisms.

The guy who says or in your case the gal who says "see, this is what Christians are like" don't interact with origins questions.

JosephKano

@Hans-Georg Lundahl under the boot of such in their institutions... Wow. You're not chucking some emotive language around. No, not at all. /s

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano Emotive language is sometimes correct language, even if Atheism cannot really account for that ....

"and to scientists who are either atheists or in modern conditions under the boot of such in their institutions."

Well, atheists are kind of the top dogs at places like Cambridge Centre of Cosmology, aren't they? A Christian who wanted a carreere as an Egyptologist would have to deal with superiors who would call him mentally ill if he didn't buy the carbon dates as correct by the standard calibration, wouldn't he?

@JosephKano By the way, you are not answering my argument about mutual outsourcing, calculated to block real debates.

JosephKano

@Hans-Georg Lundahl radioactive dating is accurate. Too much of our industries relies on it. The multiple forms of it are such that we know it has to be accurate.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ofc I'm not going to do the research needed to establish the origins of the universe. Just as no scientist would be able to do my job after 30 years in my field, I wouldn't be able to do their job. That's called specialisation. It's why we have modern society. It's an advantage. We don't all need to know everything, because we can't all know everything. There's literally too much.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano "Too much of our industries relies on it."

Our industries definitely do not rely on all samples that are organic starting out with around 100 pmC (of C14).

"The multiple forms of it are such that we know it has to be accurate."

For most of samples dated by C14, it's that one or vaguer ones (thermoluminiscence comes to mind).

For most samples dated by longer halflives, they cannot be calibrated against C14 even, and have even more ridiculous issues about the original quantity of the mother isotope.

"I'm not going to do the research needed to establish the origins of the universe."

Neither are Cambridge Centre going to. If they took the trouble to answer Creationist critics in person, instead of outsourcing that debate to you, it would be painfully (for them) apparent.

"That's called specialisation."

Between a researcher and critics of his research (or answering them) specialisation is not an advantage.

As a critic, I am frustrated by researchers not facing my criticism, and debaters who do feeling confidence in their research without being able to debate details.

"We don't all need to know everything, because we can't all know everything. There's literally too much."

That's actually my own attitude about non-carbon dating methods - but I am more looking for debate on the carbon 14 side, where I did some own work, so far more confirmed than (if at all) refuted.

13:09 No, he is not saying you have to take an interest in this question. He says you have to do so IF you are interested in interacting with him.

And you are misrepresenting what he's saying, so he gets fewer interactors.

13:18 "and you just don't"

Are you trying to scare off your teens from contemplating apologetics? What if that is interesting to them?
Or to teens they have in their circle of contacts at school? Etc....

You sound very eerily like someone trying to teach younger people the right approach to such and such a type.

It may have some interest (not sure what) if it comes to dealing with homeless. It may have some interest (not sure what) when it comes to a man of thirty giving a compliment to a teen. Without you or your type first presenting him as an acquaintance.

But why would you find it interesting to tell younger people about apologists? Are you trying to warn them in a soft way or sth?

13:39 Very few know all the facts. Atheists saying "they haven't considered all the facts" are pretty common if they are pointing to Christians. What's wrong with his turning this around?

14:13 This one is interesting. If you actually say "find some new ones" - where should we look?

Mar

Dude, you would not believe in God not even if Jesus would come down from the cross and slap you in your face for not believe in him....
But Ok... Let me answer you. A soul exists just as your thoughts. Can you see them? or your conscious? Can Anyone see them? Nope? But that it does not mean they do not exist...
And Yes, if there is a creation, there must be a creator... Just as if there is a building there must be someone be a builder...
And ye, i know you will hide always with the stupid and hipocrite phrase, "Using the word "creation" to describe reality automatically implies a creator but doesn't make it true... You always hipocrite use this expression "it those not make it true"... I am not here anyway to convice someone who will never believe in God, with all the motivation of the Universe... So just reamin Godless, keep not answer questions, and think you will be Nothing once death, you idiot...
But ou can not explain what comes from 0, which is what you believe happened before the Big Bang, , without and external intervantion, right? May God Bless you anyway. :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mar "Dude, you would not believe in God"

In case you missed it, I am a Christian, and I was asking Scarlett (in case you missed it, she's Atheist, it's her channel) for the arguments she would be willing to consider.

14:47 God making personal contact with you?

God did that with Adam and Eve, and so did the Devil (never mind the guys who say Lilith was the serpent, they are wrong). If you've forgotten how it went, reread Genesis 3.

Since we fell back then, contacting people directly and pretending to be either God or more usually an angel from God or a god (Shiva comes to mind) has been a nice little game for the Devil.

How about God wanting some sanitation in how we know of Him, like starting out with miracles and making these accessed by a relatively small but reliable portion of mankind? And working on from there in what is called a Church? (Btw, Braxton isn't Catholic, he can't lead you all the way to God through real sacraments, except the ones that require no priestly character, but that doesn't make him a bad apologist on this level, same as with Matt Slick).

JosephKano

Bwahahaha. I was raised Catholic. That church didn't lead me to God. It just bored me. Least they know Adam and Eve and all of Genesis is allegorical, not literal. Though you don't seem to know that...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano "Least they know Adam and Eve and all of Genesis is allegorical,"

Yes, correct, Adam and Eve are an allegory of Christ and the Church, and so is all of the Old Testament.

"not literal."

Not correct. Cardinal Marx may think so, but he's not Catholic.

Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 1
Question 1. The nature and extent of sacred doctrine
Article 10. Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?

Here is a sufficient excerpt from the corpus of above article (and corpus is neither objections, nor sed contra, nor reply to objections, it's the main gist, before the reply to objections, of what St. Thomas thinks himself), here:

"I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification."

"Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense."

JosephKano

@Hans-Georg Lundahl who is Cardinal Marx?

You seem to be all over the shop m8. RUOK?

Julian

That is a nice baseless fable you got there, it would be a shame if someone asked you how you demonstrated adam and eve even existed.
Specially the part were god ended up lying while the snake ended up telling the true (acording to the fable, satan wasnt part of the story, you are just wrong)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Julian "if someone asked you how you demonstrated adam and eve even existed."

How do you demonstrate Ariovistus existed? You go to Caesar. Where do we find Caesar now? In manuscripts, the oldest of which are from IX C. AD.

But wasn't Caesar mentioned by Cicero in the dialogue Brutus? Indeed, but where do we find that dialogue? In manuscripts, usually from XV C. AD except one unusually old one from IX C. AD.

So, how do I demonstrate Adam and Eve existed? I go to Moses. The oldest manuscript of whose Torah is about as much more recent than he, as Caesar's surviving manuscripts are from Caesar.

Texts from old times are the usual reason we believe people in old times - specific people that is - existed.

"god ended up lying while the snake ended up telling the true"

To God, a day is like a thousand years, Adam and Eve died at 930. So, God spoke the truth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano "who is Cardinal Marx?"

A man accepted for some weird reason as a Roman Catholic in Germany and in the Vatican.

As to the rest, if I can't cite St. Thomas Aquinas from the text without your thinking I'm rambling, I don't think you had very much Catholic background if any.

JosephKano

@Hans-Georg Lundahl was only raised Catholic, forced to attend a catholic school, which for several years was named after Aquinas, which had Christian Brothers, then went to a coed catholic school that had Christian Brothers and Sisters of St Joseph, if I recall correctly, it's been many years and frankly I no longer care. Mind you I think I suppressed most of it because it's garbage. I have occasional flashbacks of catechism. Not interested in reliving that thanks. Your gods aren't the real m8. They are welcome to prove me wrong however they haven't done it yet, I ask people to put them in touch all the time and they don't even pick up the phone. Still no idea who Cardinal Marx is, but whatever.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano "Still no idea who Cardinal Marx is, but whatever."

Let's put it like this. Australian Catholics haven't missed much if they don't hear about him.

It's a modernist who arguably doesn't believe Adam and Eve are real, who thinks gay couples should have if not marriage some kind of ceremony and blessing ... you know the kind of stuff that sends chills down the spine of faithful Catholics.

JosephKano

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I also don't care if Catholics get chills down their spines. Marriage is a secular institution managed by the government. In Australia it's under the marriage act. Priests can be celebrants, however celebrants do not need to be priests. There's no need to stop people, 2 consenting adults, voluntarily joining themselves in marriage.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl also Adam and Eve weren't real. No catholic should believe they were real. That's an allegorical story.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano Marriage was instituted by God in Paradise.

@JosephKano "Allegorical" doesn't mean "not literal" - shall I cite St. Thomas Aquinas again?

By "no Catholic should" - do you mean on your view as Atheist (I suppose) or is expected according to Church documents?

In the latter case, you are wrong, Session V of the Council of Trent in three so called canones referst to Adam, and this makes anyone not believing Adam a non-Catholic, precisely as if he denied the Mass.

JosephKano

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the first marriages predate recorded history m8. It's been around since well before your god claim. Or do you intend to overturn a lot of archaeology and anthropology m8? You are very amusing with your quaint attempts at this so far. Allegory tells a moral political or religious story. Adam and Eve tells a moral (LOL not in My opinion, that God isn't moral) amd religious story. Nothing more.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl council of Trent... Yeh you need to get up to date with what more recent Pope's have said m8. Your a tad out of date. Or are you going to be a heretic and claim the pope's don't have authority?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano "Or do you intend to overturn a lot of archaeology and anthropology m8?"

Indeed.

"Allegory tells a moral political or religious story."

That's not the sense in which we Catholics believe in the allegoric sense of Adam and Eve.

"with what more recent Pope's have said"

Two things on that one.

1) Whatever the case may be with Bergoglio ("Pope Francis"), I don't think Ratzinger ("Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI") and Wojtyla ("Pope Saint John Paul II") denied Adam and Eve, even if they heavily promoted Evolution and took their distance from Fundamentalism, actually in the early 90's, after I had converted.
2) It's not denying the authority of Popes to state that these guys, by being Evolutionists, by going against Trent, put themselves outside the Roman Catholic Church and therefore were not Popes and still aren't.

@JosephKano I note you gave up arguing on the actual issue, as distinct from supposed conflict between my own and the RC view.

JosephKano

@Hans-Georg Lundahl arguing what issue?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl LOL go ahead m8, you try and refute anthropology and archaeology. Good luck nutter butter.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano I meant precisely that issue - how for instance archaeology or anthropology is supposed to prove me wrong.

Care to show some muscle in debate, or you prefer just showing off that you know how to laugh?

JosephKano

@Hans-Georg Lundahl m8 you're the one who has to prove them wrong. Not the other way round. That's the hilarious bit. No one needs to refute you. You don't have any evidence for your claims. They've got all the samples they've got all the information and the records and the details and the analysis. You've got...??? You claim this and that but you don't actually have anything do you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano "you're the one who has to prove them wrong. Not the other way round."

Abusing "burden of proof" aren't we?

The normal application of it is, in courts of law, the accuser has a burden of proof since the accused is presumed innocent.

We are closer to a litigation, so in courts of law both have to prove their case.

"No one needs to refute you."

Why are you wasting so much time on contradicting me when you don't intend to refute me?

"You don't have any evidence for your claims."

You pretend to know that in advance? Check around on my comments and see if you find one where I give evidence against language just "evolving" from bestial communications.

"They've got all the samples they've got all the information and the records and the details and the analysis."

When we deal with archaeology and anthropology, by definition, we are not dealing with historic records, so no.

As to analysis, I propose to give an alternative one.

YOU are the one who brought up they are supposed to refute me, YOU tell me how.

"You've got...???"

An alternative analysis on more than one issue, which issue do you want?

"You claim this and that but you don't actually have anything do you."

If you were sure of that, look for my comment on human language. It's first line is "14:57 It should already be present?"

Or name an issue other than that, and I'll give my alternative analysis of that, but in the case of language, they are the guys who do NOT EVEN have an alternative analysis.

Julian

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Oh Sure, lets go to a fictional fable (moses) to prove the other fictional fable (adam and eve), good thing we have multiple sources for caesar (including the multiple fables under his name, which under your own standard you would have to accpet them to, good thing that is not how history works), while you only have your single fable told multiple times.
So once again, now that we know moses' fable is useless, how do you demonstrate adam and eve even existed?

So either your god was too stupid to not know what a day means or it lied anyway, while the snake ended up telling the true. Dude, each excuse only makes your god more useless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Julian "we have multiple sources for caesar"

Like Cicero's Brutus, a year or two after the conquest of Gaul?

Earliest manuscript is the Cremona fragment.

Like Sueton? That's like citing Origen for Jesus, plus, for manuscripts we have the extant ones 9th to 13th Centuries.

"including the multiple fables under his name, which under your own standard you would have to accpet them to"

What fables are you alluding to? I have no qualms about his being born with a Caesarian and with the amniotic sack around the head which augurs considered a "victory bonnet" ..

"now that we know moses' fable is useless,"

No, we are very far from establishing that, you are really rushing things with Caesar. For someone who pretends to know "how history works" you seem unaware about ... how history works.

" too stupid to not know what a day means"

Or counted on Adam being intelligent enough to figure out that God mean a day from His own perspective.

Or was referring to the spiritual death, the loss of Original Justice.

JosephKano

@Hans-Georg Lundahl it's not abusing the burden of proof. You're the one saying they are wrong. They have spent decades centuries even refining hypotheses, and researching. They have the receipts. You just go nuh uh. Pfft. Not how it works m8.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so I'm right, you don't actually have anything, else you'd be submitting to the peer reviewed journals already. You aren't and you haven't. Good luck m8.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano "You're the one saying they are wrong."

And they are the ones saying I am wrong.

"They have spent decades centuries even refining hypotheses, and researching."

And in certain cases painting themselves more and more into a corner.

Carbon dating is less than a century old.

No, the burden of proof is not "experts should be believed because they are experts and everyone else disagreeing with them has a burden of proof for every disagreement" - the only valid burden of proof is and remains "positive controversial claims require positive evidence" and it applies to experts too, I refuse to give them an "in blanco" check for what they say.

You pretend to speak for them? Find out what THEY say to prove their cases, and bring THAT on!

@JosephKano "else you'd be submitting to the peer reviewed journals already."

I did.

A criticism of P Z Myers view on chromosome numbers increasing.

Didn't take what I wrote and also didn't send me the least note of what would be wrong with my position, perhaps afraid of being worsted in the discussion.

14:57 It should already be present?
You have a language.

Let me break this down.
You - morpheme telling the one adressed that he or she is involved in the message at this point
have - morpheme about possession, opposite of lack
a - morpheme of grammatical kind, singular opposite of "the" as to definiteness (indefinite chosen because it's irrelevant what particular language it is)
language - in French this breaks down into two morphemes, meaning "tongue-thing" but in English, it is one morpheme - refers both to a particular language like French or English and to the human phenomenon in general irrespective of which it is.

Let me further break this down.

L - not S
Æ - not I
NG - not M
G - not B
W - not Y
I - not Æ
DJ - not CH

Each of these things which are not each of these other things is called a phoneme.
Sentence or phrase, morpheme, phoneme, these are three levels, and each item of level three, phoneme, is in itself meaningless except as a counter, in being different from all the other counters. The three levels form two articulations. First articulation, sentence or phrase is articulated in (subdivided into) morphemes. Second articulation, morpheme is articulated in phonemes.

This is called the double articulation. All human languages have it. No bestial auditory communication systems have it.

15:59 His point may be, the "starting to think of morality differently" may be the point for some.

My granny didn't become an Atheist so she could abort. She had - and this is to her credit - a lifelong horror of abortion. This means, being an atheist can actually involve accepting parts of what some others would call "Christian morality"

If someone first aborted and then became an atheist, and then came to say "abortion is not really OK, but we needn't make a fuss about it" (like we don't need to put in singlehanded aborting women for one to four years, those abortiong with medical assistance plus that medical assistance for two to five years, a mum or dad forcing a girl under 14 to abort for six to twelve years) ... does this in some way descredit her claim to become an atheist just for the evidence? Like, the evidence, just by itself, wouldn't incite her to stop abhorring abortion.

16:52 "You don't need to go looking at books / for books"

Totally a good one, compared to the atheists who have the habit of telling Christians if they haven't read this book on evolution or that book on how Ezra forged the books of Moses, you can't join the conversation.

18:58 Ooops - that was not what my granny was told by the guys who wanted to perpetuate her child age deconversion.

No no .... Christian morality was valid, except for a very few like contraception, just that you really don't need all that dogma to bolster it.

After what I reconstruct from some things she said, she really didn't all that much like to talk to me about her views (other than as occasional admonishments against my Christianity, and pretty unbalanced ones too), after I became a Christian thanks to ma.

JosephKano

That seems terribly confused... Let me try to parse it out.

Your grandmother stopped talking to you after she realised you had joined the cult your mother had?

Did I get that right?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano No, she very much didn't stop talking to me. She started avoiding that subject.

And neither ma nor me were in one cult, we started out as Church hoppers and later turned to Catholicism.

19:36 No - you said many of you thought yourself out of Christianity (in one case, out of Jainism, if you know Hemant Mehta), and you thought through it.

That's precisely what Braxton Hunter wants to hear more about.

JosephKano

Are you claiming he wants to hear our deconversion stories? Sure... And creationism will be recognised as a science. Bwahahahahahahahababahabahaabbabhbbahahahahah.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@JosephKano Perhaps not all of a deconversion story ... more like the intellectual parts.

19:53 Take a look at my breakdown of the sentence "you have a language" and ask yourself if your dog or a monkey in the zoo has one in the same sense.

"your dog" - or cat, obviously, my bad!