Ben Stein: Donald Trump is 'dangerously misinformed'

[USincognito]

How trustworthy is :

Herodotus, (484 – c. 420 BC), Halicarnassus, "Father of History", wrote the Histories that established Western historiography
Or, Thucydides, (460 – c. 400 BC), Peloponnesian War,

Herodotus has a lot of issues. He reports a lot of local lore as fact and history. His story about the building of the pyramids has been debunked for decades now.

Thucydides on the other hand was writing about events he actually witnessed to and belies the claim that history is written by the victors (he was Athenian).

 

[JacksBratt]

Cause I don't see the point in spending an hour on a video that only discusses stuff I have already studied

You don't have to spend an hour. I gave you the time location in the video...
You don't have an hour to spend on learning the truth.
You don't have an hour to spend as an expert in cold case investigations explains why the gospel is legit? Oh ya, cause you already know it all. There is nothing new to learn for you.....
... and you wonder why your still an atheist even though you don't want to be one. No offense but that is, in my opinion, a poor excuse.

No it isn't. It's a conviction based on information and stimuli we are exposed to.

Exactly, we are given information and stimuli and we decide whether to believe or not. I'm not going to get in an argument over this. I believe what I choose to believe. I way the logic, observations of others, any documentation, add my experience and then make the choice.

You can't CHOOSE to believe something. Go ahead and try to choose to believe in Santa Clause for the next ten minutes. The evidence either is convincing to you, or it is not. You can't choose whether it is or not.

Please use something realistic.
You drop your car keys into a pool. They sink to the bottom. A kid says "I can swim down and get them, if you want".
You CHOOSE to believe that they can do it and say "Ya sure". Say it's a real young kid. So you say "are you sure you can do that"? They say "yep, no problem, I know I'm only little but I have a pool at home and do this for fun". You either choose to believe them or you don't..... IF they do it then it's not a belief anymore, it's knowledge of a fact.

You are looking for knowledge of the fact of Christ's life, not belief in Christ.

What makes you think that I haven't? YOU didn't even know who Origen was.

What in the world does my not knowing who Origen is, have anything to do with this? I am not above admitting that I have much to learn.

Did I not say "thank you" for questioning me on this as it gave me motivation to look into this further. I love finding more and more out about ancient writings mentioning Christ or anything Biblical. I know who he is now.

I also watched the video and learned fascinating methods that are used by skilled observers to take the testimony of people, years later and deduce where they were truthful and where they lied. Also, they determine, by things they say, the meaning of what they don't say....

If you don't think you will learn something from this, you lose.

I have a friend who was raised in a Christian home. He follows Christ, his brother is professing to be a non believer now. I told my friend that it is easier to convince someone to believe if they are an unbeliever than it is to debate with someone who knows it is true but is trying to convince themself that it is not.

I believe that God is tugging at your heart and pounding at your door. But there is something in your heart that is stubbornly ignoring it and, if fact consciously fighting not to open the door.

 

[JacksBratt]

I can think of some reasons why a person wouldn't want to watch it.
1. The video is too long/they don't have the spare time to watch it.
2. They watched part of it, and the person performing the analysis showed bias and or ignorance to enough of an extent to make the viewer not see value in watching it further.
3. Most videos of this nature are for reaffirming belief, not converting nonbelievers, so they don't really work for the latter.

I understand your reasons however:

1. People here have plenty of time to joust back and forth, the same old issues ad nausium, yet they cannot watch a simple vid..... really?
2. This guy is an expert, past atheist, who worked in the law enforcement for years. I hardly think he is biased or shows any glimpse of ignorance in this procedure. He, along with his colleges, have been proven in a court of law and never lost.
3.This vid is not reaffirming anything. It is a scientific dissection of testimony as a method of finding truthful testimony or lies.

Mine is most assuredly not. I would rather believe than be tormented by my own impending death to the extent I am, even if I would have to sacrifice logic to do it. However, I can't control how I interpret information and the world like that.


You actually don't fully consciously decide that. The standard of evidence you would be willing to accept is shaped greatly by your life experiences, preconceptions, and natural inclinations; none of which you consciously shape to have the standard of evidence you want to have.

I dissagree, I believe we have a certain level of facts that need to be met before we will choose to believe. Some choose very easily, others take a bit more, some need to see blood before they believe you are hurt.

Belief is a choice. Seeing concrete evidence is knowledge. At that point you don't believe, you know. Big difference.

Nope. If this were true, you should be able to force yourself to believe that Criss Angel is an actual wizard without any additional evidence.

Chris angle is aided by demonic forces. I have seen a whole documentary on the fact that the demand for increasing shock and ahh needed to wow an audience has led to a new level of illusions and magic. One guy drops an object into an aquarium, then slowly reaches his arm through the glass and removes the object, pulling his arm out and leaving no hole in the glass. Another, goes to a market, gets a person to pick out a random banana, or kiwi and then a water melon. When he does his hocus pocus then cuts the water melon in half.... the banana or kiwi is inside, perfectly. He then peels the banana or kiwi and inside is watermelon....Yet another walked on water, out into the middle of a busy harbour and was picked up by the police boat.

You should also be able to voluntarily be an atheist for 5 minutes, and then reconvert yourself.

After becoming a Christian, I went from being a believer to having knowledge. I have knowledge and my eyes are open to the fact that there is a God and Christ is real. So, no I cannot convince myself of something opposite to my knowledge, anymore than you can convince yourself that it isn't painful to drink a coffee that is too hot or have your hair pulled.

If you can do either, I'll be convinced (unless you already thought Criss Angel was an actual wizard)

LOL, you must understand, Satan and his ilk are going to be more and more of a presence in this world. Remember the story of the magicians throwing their staffs on the ground beside Moses' staff. They all became snakes but Moses' staff ate the other three snakes....... If it is not of God, it is demonic and of Satan.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yes, but the reasoning behind it and the capacity to believe something vary from person to person.

I agree, it takes more to bring some people to the point where they choose to believe.

Then you admit that not having faith is no longer a choice for you, even though you previously claimed that having it was a choice. How is one so different from the other?

I'm glad you asked. My choice to believe was by faith. Now that I am a Christian, my eyes are opened. Now I have knowledge. Events and occurrences, documents and historical events, they all make sense. The fact that Christ lives in me is as real to me as the food I eat, the ground I walk on or the air I breath.

It's true, you become a new creature.

Well, for me, I never had any faith to begin with, but I have tried desperately to find evidence that would allow me to obtain it for nearly 8 years now. I've come up empty thus far.

I have heard you say this before. I would pray for you to experience what you need, but only if you gave me permission.

Christ demands that we come by faith. There is no amount of "evidence" that can convince man. We have to come as children. Children believe without proof.

 

[46AND2]

You don't have to spend an hour. I gave you the time location in the video...
You don't have an hour to spend on learning the truth.
You don't have an hour to spend as an expert in cold case investigations explains why the gospel is legit? Oh ya, cause you already know it all. There is nothing new to learn for you.....
... and you wonder why your still an atheist even though you don't want to be one. No offense but that is, in my opinion, a poor excuse.



Exactly, we are given information and stimuli and we decide whether to believe or not. I'm not going to get in an argument over this. I believe what I choose to believe. I way the logic, observations of others, any documentation, add my experience and then make the choice.


Please use something realistic.
You drop your car keys into a pool. They sink to the bottom. A kid says "I can swim down and get them, if you want".
You CHOOSE to believe that they can do it and say "Ya sure". Say it's a real young kid. So you say "are you sure you can do that"? They say "yep, no problem, I know I'm only little but I have a pool at home and do this for fun". You either choose to believe them or you don't..... IF they do it then it's not a belief anymore, it's knowledge of a fact.

You are looking for knowledge of the fact of Christ's life, not belief in Christ.




What in the world does my not knowing who Origen is, have anything to do with this? I am not above admitting that I have much to learn.

Did I not say "thank you" for questioning me on this as it gave me motivation to look into this further. I love finding more and more out about ancient writings mentioning Christ or anything Biblical. I know who he is now.

I also watched the video and learned fascinating methods that are used by skilled observers to take the testimony of people, years later and deduce where they were truthful and where they lied. Also, they determine, by things they say, the meaning of what they don't say....

If you don't think you will learn something from this, you lose.

I have a friend who was raised in a Christian home. He follows Christ, his brother is professing to be a non believer now. I told my friend that it is easier to convince someone to believe if they are an unbeliever than it is to debate with someone who knows it is true but is trying to convince themself that it is not.

I believe that God is tugging at your heart and pounding at your door. But there is something in your heart that is stubbornly ignoring it and, if fact consciously fighting not to open the door.

Apologists have been making the same claims for decades. What reason do I have to believe that your video isn't the same arguments found in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, or A Case for Christ or any number of books I've already read? It's the same info presented in a slightly different way, and I've spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours researching this stuff.

What NEW things does he bring to the table? Any recent discoveries? I already knew you couldn't present your pagan sources, because I looked for that kind of thing for years, and it doesn't exist.

 

[JacksBratt]

Let me give you an example of why you did not provide a pagan source:

If I wrote a biography of Abraham Lincoln, and included a quote in which he said " I do order and declare...all persons held as slaves within...designated States," is my biography the source of that quote, or is the Emancipation Proclamation? Did he actually write those words? Is it the right context? How do you know, unless you go to the ACTUAL source?

So, the text written by Origens was fine for all these years, as was his quote of Philegon. However, today in 2016, it is not good enough for you.

Like I said....... if all else fails............discredit the source because no matter what, anything confirming the Bible is unacceptable.

 

[JacksBratt]

Apologists have been making the same claims for decades. What reason do I have to believe that your video isn't the same arguments found in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, or A Case for Christ or any number of books I've already read? It's the same info presented in a slightly different way, and I've spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours researching this stuff.

What NEW things does he bring to the table? Any recent discoveries? I already knew you couldn't present your pagan sources, because I looked for that kind of thing for years, and it doesn't exist.

Are you listening. He is an expert in analysis of the testimony of people and what they have said. He surgically takes it apart and determines lies from truths..


whatever..... swallow your pride for a bit and watch it.

I'm sure you will find it interesting. Even if you cannot believe him. I'm sure you, will know much more than this expert who worked for decades in the law enforcement field, first undercover then in solving cold cases, many of which had testimony of people who had died and could no longer be interviewed. Working with old courtroom documents and solving the case.........and never lost.........in a US court of law...

Ya, I guess you're right, what a waste of time. Think its best to just stay on this forum and argue the same old topics with us believers for hours and hours.

 

[46AND2]

So, the text written by Origens was fine for all these years, as was his quote of Philegon. However, today in 2016, it is not good enough for you.

Uh. Not sure what you mean. Please elaborate.

 

[46AND2]

Are you listening. He is an expert in analysis of the testimony of people and what they have said. He surgically takes it apart and determines lies from truths..


whatever..... swallow your pride for a bit and watch it.

I'm sure you will find it interesting. Even if you cannot believe him. I'm sure you, will know much more than this expert who worked for decades in the law enforcement field, first undercover then in solving cold cases, many of which had testimony of people who had died and could no longer be interviewed. Working with old courtroom documents and solving the case.........and never lost.........in a US court of law...

Ya, I guess you're right, what a waste of time. Think its best to just stay on this forum and argue the same old topics with us believers for hours and hours.

And Strobel was a lawyer, and investigative journalist who attempted to argue from his point of view. The data is the same no matter how you doll it up.

It's like tv shows these days trying to find new ways to keep csi type shows interesting, when it's all the same old stuff.

 

[46AND2]

Please use something realistic.

Certainly. We can use whatever example you like. Just because something is easier to believe, doesn't mean it's a choice.

You drop your car keys into a pool. They sink to the bottom. A kid says "I can swim down and get them, if you want".
You CHOOSE to believe that they can do it and say "Ya sure".

Let's see what information we have: You know, from experience, that many kids know how to swim. Many of them, know how to swim well.

Let's see what stimuli we have: The kid is very confident. It is apparent that HE believes he can do it. That confidence influences your confidence, even if you aren't conscious of that effect.

You haven't CHOSEN to believe the kid. He (and other kids who can swim well) have convinced you that he's probably good for it.

Say it's a real young kid. So you say "are you sure you can do that"? They say "yep, no problem, I know I'm only little but I have a pool at home and do this for fun". You either choose to believe them or you don't.....

No, now you just have more information, which influences your conviction, and stymies your skepticism. Let's say that the kid's parent gives you even MORE information. Suppose his mom says that "he has never set foot in water deeper than the bathtub in his life. His older brother is a champion swimmer, and when he watches his brother swim, he's convinced he can do it, too."

Can you CHOOSE to still believe this kid, despite the added information from the parent?

IF they do it then it's not a belief anymore, it's knowledge of a fact.

At least we can agree here. If we observe the kid actually swim down and get the keys, we don't have to believe (or disbelieve) he can do it, anymore.

You are looking for knowledge of the fact of Christ's life, not belief in Christ.

No. I am open to any information or stimuli which can overcome my current level of skepticism.

 

[46AND2]

Starting out in the 20-30 minute timestamp, your video makes it out like Ehrman is arguing for some unreasonably late date for the authorship of the gospels. When, in fact, Ehrman's dates are quite in line with scholarly consensus for these books. Indeed, it is Wallace who is in the minority when it comes to dating the books of the Bible. Which is fine, if he has good reason push the dates back earlier (though he should write a peer reviewed article supporting such novel views). But he is not using ANY different technique to push back the date for the gospels than Christian biblical scholarship does. Scholars use the latin terms "Terminus post quem" and "terminus ante quem" for the latest and earliest dates which can be confirmed for the writing of a particular manuscript. I'm sure he is aware of this, since he uses examples of how scholars attempt to narrow down the authorship of the book of Luke. Of course, he makes it sound like this is a novel idea of his from his cold case experience. I just want you to recognize that he is not only going against the likes of Ehrman, but also the majority of Christian scholars.

Did you notice that he merely claims that Ehrman dates authorship to the gospels closer to the Council of Laodicea than the crucifixion, but doesn't actually quote him? It is true that Ehrman states that the earliest manuscripts we have for them dates that late, but he stresses again and again that these are copies of copies of copies. That has nothing to do with the terminus ante quem of authorship.

Have to sleep for the night, but I'm 41 minutes in, and still no eyewitnesses. Mostly he's talked about Luke, who, as he says, is not an eyewitness.

And, so far, my suspicions have been confirmed. This is EXACTLY like the two books I mentioned previously, with a little twist that he's a cold case investigator to try and give a little positive sway to the argument. But in reality, he uses the SAME techniques, with LESS scholarly knowledge of the gospels than the actual professionals use. It isn't new. It's exactly how scholars critique the writings.

Anyway, I'll finish the video and write more about it tomorrow.

 

[46AND2]

Starting out in the 20-30 minute timestamp, your video makes it out like Ehrman is arguing for some unreasonably late date for the authorship of the gospels. When, in fact, Ehrman's dates are quite in line with scholarly consensus for these books. Indeed, it is Wallace who is in the minority when it comes to dating the books of the Bible. Which is fine, if he has good reason push the dates back earlier (though he should write a peer reviewed article supporting such novel views). But he is not using ANY different technique to push back the date for the gospels than Christian biblical scholarship does. Scholars use the latin terms "Terminus post quem" and "terminus ante quem" for the latest and earliest dates which can be confirmed for the writing of a particular manuscript. I'm sure he is aware of this, since he uses examples of how scholars attempt to narrow down the authorship of the book of Luke. Of course, he makes it sound like this is a novel idea of his from his cold case experience. I just want you to recognize that he is not only going against the likes of Ehrman, but also the majority of Christian scholars.

Did you notice that he merely claims that Ehrman dates authorship to the gospels closer to the Council of Laodicea than the crucifixion, but doesn't actually quote him? It is true that Ehrman states that the earliest manuscripts we have for them dates that late, but he stresses again and again that these are copies of copies of copies. That has nothing to do with the terminus ante quem of authorship.

Have to sleep for the night, but I'm 41 minutes in, and still no eyewitnesses. Mostly he's talked about Luke, who, as he says, is not an eyewitness.

And, so far, my suspicions have been confirmed. This is EXACTLY like the two books I mentioned previously, with a little twist that he's a cold case investigator to try and give a little positive sway to the argument. But in reality, he uses the SAME techniques, with LESS scholarly knowledge of the gospels than the actual professionals use. It isn't new. It's exactly how scholars critique the writings.

Anyway, I'll finish the video and write more about it tomorrow.

I couldn't stay away. I have so much to say about this video, but I'll leave it at this for tonight...

He made the point that the farther after the death of Christ the testimony is, the less reliable. He even said skeptics are justified in thinking this way. Correct? I can timestamp it, if you want.


Ok, keep that in mind, it is important in a minute.

He also stated that one of the 4 things detectives question about eyewitnesses is: Were they present? Correct?

When discussing this point, he starts talking about Luke. And the date of authorship for Luke. How it could be as early as the 40s AD. Then he states that Luke is NOT an eyewitness. Correct?

So let's get this straight...his argument about "were the eyewitnesses present" is based on an author who he already agrees, wasn't an eyewitness?

He merely makes the claim that Luke was written earlier than Bart Ehrman would have you believe, and that Mark was written earlier still, since Luke used some of Mark. What he DOESN'T tell you, is that Mark is ALSO not known as an eyewitness. In fact, scholars by and large agree that Mark is NOT an eyewitness, does not claim to be, and we have every reason to believe that he was NOT an eyewitness.

So who is the only gospel writer who he actually claims as an eyewitness? John.

John is universally understood to have been the LAST gospel written. (remember what I told you to keep in mind?).

And when it comes to the topic that Wallace claimed was important in checking the reliability of an eyewitness, "Was he/she present," what does he offer concerning John? Zilch.

He totally defeats his argument in his own presentation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I agree, it takes more to bring some people to the point where they choose to believe.

I chose belief in an afterlife and at least 1 deity a long time ago. Yet, my own beliefs DEFY that conscious choice. I have nothing to gain from being an atheist, absolutely, 100% nothing to gain from it, and not only that, but I know I don't want to be an atheist. And here I am, still an atheist despite nearly 8 years of effort towards not being one. That you dodge around admitting that it "takes more to bring people to a choice", that is, more evidence or better evidence is required before there is some equilibrium between two opposing ideas to the point that the choice becomes conscious, is an insult to reality. Most of the time, unless a person hold extreme favoritism towards one side, the side with the most and best evidence will win out. I hold extreme favoritism TOWARDS THEISM, and yet, I AM AN ATHEIST. I have been seeking evidence that deities exist, to the point of practically ignoring evidence that suggests otherwise, but the evidence for deities is so lacking that even with my desire greatly tipping the scales in its favor, I still don't believe. This is not a conscious choice on my part, and if you are going to insist that it is, then I demand you demonstrate that belief is a choice. Choose to believe something that you currently don't for an entire day, and then make yourself not believe it anymore. Something you have at least some prior knowledge of.

I'm glad you asked. My choice to believe was by faith.

-_- then choose not to have faith for a day.

Now that I am a Christian, my eyes are opened. Now I have knowledge. Events and occurrences, documents and historical events, they all make sense. The fact that Christ lives in me is as real to me as the food I eat, the ground I walk on or the air I breath.

That's good... for you. Now choose not to believe for a day. I am willing to bet god will forgive you for doing it in order to help in the conversion of someone else, especially since you can go right back to believing right after.

It's true, you become a new creature.

As much as any change in ideology would, probably, but I don't have any experiences being a theist, so I'm not going to press that idea.

I have heard you say this before. I would pray for you to experience what you need, but only if you gave me permission.

I have no issue with you praying for my sake. I'd pray for your general success in life, but most theists don't like it when I do that. Rather than pray for some ambiguous experience, how about ask god to stop giving me the silent treatment? Most of what I pray for is a conversation or demonstration that something is listening.

Christ demands that we come by faith. There is no amount of "evidence" that can convince man. We have to come as children. Children believe without proof.

Studies in psychology have shown that the majority of children will believe the words of an adult figure without evidence, but some don't. Given my behavior as a child in personally disproving the existence of Santa Claus and the like (despite my parents actively trying to reaffirm the belief), I'd say I would have been a difficult kid to indoctrinate even at a very young age. After all, it isn't like I caught my mom putting presents under the tree or something like that to disprove the concept to me. I asked Santa for something my parents couldn't buy: a fairy that could grant wishes (the idea being that then, I could have whatever I wanted, and get anyone else whatever they wanted while I was at it). Obviously, I didn't get that. Also, leaving the tags on the toys "from Santa" was rather suspicious.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I understand your reasons however:

1. People here have plenty of time to joust back and forth, the same old issues ad nausium, yet they cannot watch a simple vid..... really?

If you don't look for it, you're unlikely to notice it, but a lot of the time these posts flip frequently between being online and offline every few minutes, and some are online consecutively for far less than an hour.

2. This guy is an expert, past atheist, who worked in the law enforcement for years. I hardly think he is biased or shows any glimpse of ignorance in this procedure. He, along with his colleges, have been proven in a court of law and never lost.

His expertise is not in theology or the sciences then, so we can throw away the appeal to authority. Furthermore, if a Catholic converted to Hinduism claimed to have a lot of insight into Buddhism, would his past theological background be relevant to that? Of course not. Not all atheists are the same, nor are all theists the same. Atheists are less united than any group of theists, so one man's experiences being an atheist are unlikely to parallel those of many other atheists.

3.This vid is not reaffirming anything. It is a scientific dissection of testimony as a method of finding truthful testimony or lies.

In which his career background has nothing to do with it.

I dissagree, I believe we have a certain level of facts that need to be met before we will choose to believe. Some choose very easily, others take a bit more, some need to see blood before they believe you are hurt.

But in a different post, you believed on faith, not because of facts.

Belief is a choice. Seeing concrete evidence is knowledge. At that point you don't believe, you know. Big difference.[/QUOTE]
Obviously, I have personal experiences that I can't really share with you to show you how wrong this is, because you can't experience the workings of your mind, but I can try to give you a path to an equivalent experience. I am going to give you a claim, and I want you to make yourself believe it.

My 8 year old brother is pregnant.

Now, make yourself believe it, or [insert threat of choice that won't get me banned here].

Chris angle is aided by demonic forces. I have seen a whole documentary on the fact that the demand for increasing shock and ahh needed to wow an audience has led to a new level of illusions and magic. One guy drops an object into an aquarium, then slowly reaches his arm through the glass and removes the object, pulling his arm out and leaving no hole in the glass. Another, goes to a market, gets a person to pick out a random banana, or kiwi and then a water melon. When he does his hocus pocus then cuts the water melon in half.... the banana or kiwi is inside, perfectly. He then peels the banana or kiwi and inside is watermelon....Yet another walked on water, out into the middle of a busy harbour and was picked up by the police boat.

You cut off the part from my post where I said it would only be impressive if you didn't already think Criss Angel was a wizard or something similar, and that if you already did, you'd have to make yourself believe the opposite in order for it to be impressive to me. Also, he spells it Criss, I don't know why or particularly care, but that's how he spells it. Also, he's done the walking on water trick before, so how do you know Jesus wasn't a liar aided by demons too?

After becoming a Christian, I went from being a believer to having knowledge. I have knowledge and my eyes are open to the fact that there is a God and Christ is real. So, no I cannot convince myself of something opposite to my knowledge, anymore than you can convince yourself that it isn't painful to drink a coffee that is too hot or have your hair pulled.

Then belief is not a fully conscious choice, by your own admission.

LOL, you must understand, Satan and his ilk are going to be more and more of a presence in this world. Remember the story of the magicians throwing their staffs on the ground beside Moses' staff. They all became snakes but Moses' staff ate the other three snakes....... If it is not of God, it is demonic and of Satan.

Actually, violence in the world is way lower than in the past. We just have the ability to record all of it much faster and easier, so it gives the illusion that there is more. That, and more effective weapons too, so that individual people can cause more damage.

 

[JacksBratt]

If you don't look for it, you're unlikely to notice it, but a lot of the time these posts flip frequently between being online and offline every few minutes, and some are online consecutively for far less than an hour.


His expertise is not in theology or the sciences then, so we can throw away the appeal to authority. Furthermore, if a Catholic converted to Hinduism claimed to have a lot of insight into Buddhism, would his past theological background be relevant to that? Of course not. Not all atheists are the same, nor are all theists the same. Atheists are less united than any group of theists, so one man's experiences being an atheist are unlikely to parallel those of many other atheists.

In which his career background has nothing to do with it.



But in a different post, you believed on faith, not because of facts.

Belief is a choice. Seeing concrete evidence is knowledge. At that point you don't believe, you know. Big difference.

Obviously, I have personal experiences that I can't really share with you to show you how wrong this is, because you can't experience the workings of your mind, but I can try to give you a path to an equivalent experience. I am going to give you a claim, and I want you to make yourself believe it.

My 8 year old brother is pregnant.

Now, make yourself believe it, or [insert threat of choice that won't get me banned here].



You cut off the part from my post where I said it would only be impressive if you didn't already think Criss Angel was a wizard or something similar, and that if you already did, you'd have to make yourself believe the opposite in order for it to be impressive to me. Also, he spells it Criss, I don't know why or particularly care, but that's how he spells it. Also, he's done the walking on water trick before, so how do you know Jesus wasn't a liar aided by demons too?


Then belief is not a fully conscious choice, by your own admission.




Actually, violence in the world is way lower than in the past. We just have the ability to record all of it much faster and easier, so it gives the illusion that there is more. That, and more effective weapons too, so that individual people can cause more damage.

Sarah, I can tell by your posts that you are probably more intelligent than average. You sound like you question everything. That is not a bad thing.

You have posted a lot of information here and, sorry to say, I do not have time to respond to each point as I would like to.

Asking me to believe in something that I already have knowledge of being false, is impossible. Say, asking me to believe that the sun will come up in the west tomorrow. Or the scenario about your brother. This is not possible.

Let's look at a guy, say 20 years old, with acceptable hygiene, average hair cut, average clothes, so nothing to indicate that he is poor or rich or give any indication as to his social status or intelligence, no ethnic, racial, or religious indicators, so basically an average Joe. He comes up to you and says "look, I know you don't know me but, I am parked in a lot and forgot my wallet. Can you give me a $20.00? I have to go to the bank right now, but cannot walk that far, I will bring you your $20.00 back in 30 minutes. Please, I'm really stuck in a bind."

Anyone could have this happen to them and each would choose to say yes or no to this guy. Some would chose to trust and believe some would say "nope, don't believe".

Their belief or trust in this random guy would be a choice. Sure it would be based on their experiences in the past. Their financial ability to gamble on losing a $20. Whatever, yet, they would make a choice.

You said that there is evidence for the existence of a Deity and evidence against the existence of a Deity. Can you give me a piece of evidence for the existence of a Deity? Also, one for the opposite? I cannot seem to come up with a piece of solid evidence for either. None that would convince a non believer to believe, or a believer to lose their belief either.

Your last post is confusing to me. The one about violence declining. I just don't get the connection between my quote and your response. I don't recall saying anything about escalation in violence right now.

I did say that you are going to see a greater presence of Satan and his ilk. This will manifest itself in more and more unexplainable events.

This will range from 1/ the phenomenal skills of and illusionist or magician, 2/the escalating number and frequency of unexplained observances in the sky, which are, with the aid of cell phone cameras and video recorders, happening at an exponential rate, yes UFO's. 3/ the increase in the number of tv shows and movies that deal with the spirit world, demigods, vampires, people with inhuman strength, powers or abilities,. The same dealing with UFO's, aliens, beings from another dimension, post apocalyptic themes and end time plots. 4/ Increasing friction between religions and killing based on the person's beliefs alone. 5/ Corruption in government, military, businesses, and legal systems. 5/ Increase in natural phenomenon or the threat of earthquakes, floods, extreme storms, celestial bodies, volcanoes, temperature fluctuations and the inability to predict these events. 6/ the increase in openness of the display of Satanic influence in modern music and it's presentation.
7/ the increase of science delving into cloning, hybridization of the human genome with animals including the production of super virus's and biological warfare.

This is what I meant by Satan's presence. I will say that if violence was declining, we are about to see a rapid flip in that trend.

 

[JacksBratt]

I couldn't stay away. I have so much to say about this video, but I'll leave it at this for tonight...

He made the point that the farther after the death of Christ the testimony is, the less reliable. He even said skeptics are justified in thinking this way. Correct? I can timestamp it, if you want.


Ok, keep that in mind, it is important in a minute.

He also stated that one of the 4 things detectives question about eyewitnesses is: Were they present? Correct?

When discussing this point, he starts talking about Luke. And the date of authorship for Luke. How it could be as early as the 40s AD. Then he states that Luke is NOT an eyewitness. Correct?

So let's get this straight...his argument about "were the eyewitnesses present" is based on an author who he already agrees, wasn't an eyewitness?

He merely makes the claim that Luke was written earlier than Bart Ehrman would have you believe, and that Mark was written earlier still, since Luke used some of Mark. What he DOESN'T tell you, is that Mark is ALSO not known as an eyewitness. In fact, scholars by and large agree that Mark is NOT an eyewitness, does not claim to be, and we have every reason to believe that he was NOT an eyewitness.

So who is the only gospel writer who he actually claims as an eyewitness? John.

John is universally understood to have been the LAST gospel written. (remember what I told you to keep in mind?).

And when it comes to the topic that Wallace claimed was important in checking the reliability of an eyewitness, "Was he/she present," what does he offer concerning John? Zilch.

He totally defeats his argument in his own presentation.

I'm not surprised by your posts.

So, basically, this guy is an expert and has convinced the US courts, for many years, and won every case, in which he applies these techniques to testimony from the past in cold case situations, to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt",

Yet, you're not buying it.

That's OK.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm not surprised by your posts.

Your video got shredded by facts -- you shouldn't be surprised.

So, basically, this guy is an expert and has convinced the US courts, for many years, and won every case, in which he applies these techniques to testimony from the past in cold case situations, to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt",

Yet, you're not buying it.

That's OK.

Of course it's okay -- you fell for the guy's slick style and fancy rhetoric... as have a lot of others, no doubt.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sarah, I can tell by your posts that you are probably more intelligent than average. You sound like you question everything. That is not a bad thing.
You have posted a lot of information here and, sorry to say, I do not have time to respond to each point as I would like to.

Thanks, and I know what you mean. I have exams coming up, so it is really hard for me to get the responses in that I want to. Thankfully, I worked faster than expected today, so I am getting the chance to make a bunch of responses at once, and then call it a day to give my brain a break.

Asking me to believe in something that I already have knowledge of being false, is impossible. Say, asking me to believe that the sun will come up in the west tomorrow. Or the scenario about your brother. This is not possible.

A virgin woman giving birth more than 2,000 years ago sounds as unbelievable to me as my brother being pregnant sounds to you. Btw, I can actually think of ways for either to be true, but then the former's child would have to be female, which is not what the bible says. Miracles are, by nature, supposed to defy what is conventionally possible, yes? So if you can believe in the miraculous virgin birth, why can't you believe in the miraculous male pregnancy? If such a thing was in your holy book, you'd believe it, but otherwise, you wouldn't? You see the problem here, right?

Let's look at a guy, say 20 years old, with acceptable hygiene, average hair cut, average clothes, so nothing to indicate that he is poor or rich or give any indication as to his social status or intelligence, no ethnic, racial, or religious indicators, so basically an average Joe. He comes up to you and says "look, I know you don't know me but, I am parked in a lot and forgot my wallet. Can you give me a $20.00? I have to go to the bank right now, but cannot walk that far, I will bring you your $20.00 back in 30 minutes. Please, I'm really stuck in a bind."

Anyone could have this happen to them and each would choose to say yes or no to this guy. Some would chose to trust and believe some would say "nope, don't believe".

Wow, this guy needs to get his story straight. That's not how lots usually work, you pay to park there, not to leave XD XD XD. It would be more believable if he needed to borrow my phone because he locked himself out of his car, and his phone was still in the car. I know what you were going for, and in more realistic situations, if the sum exceeds a certain amount, I follow the person to their destination so that they can pay me back more easily, and they are less likely to back out and just take the money.

Their belief or trust in this random guy would be a choice. Sure it would be based on their experiences in the past. Their financial ability to gamble on losing a $20. Whatever, yet, they would make a choice.

Anyone with a bit of sense would not believe that guy's story thanks to the unintentional discrepancy you left in it, and most people wouldn't bother with the trouble regardless of what they thought because they have nothing to gain from the situation if they take the leap of faith (which hardly makes this comparable to religion). I'm a bit of a sucker for people that are in bad situations, so I try to be cautious while still giving people the benefit of the doubt.

You said that there is evidence for the existence of a Deity and evidence against the existence of a Deity.

No I didn't, and the situation is closer to the opposite. I said there is evidence that what we observe arose from naturalistic means rather than from the influence of a deity. There really isn't any evidence for or against the existence of deities in general, at most, there is evidence against their involvement with the goings of the universe, and that's a bit of a stretch.

Can you give me a piece of evidence for the existence of a Deity? Also, one for the opposite? I cannot seem to come up with a piece of solid evidence for either. None that would convince a non believer to believe, or a believer to lose their belief either.

Nah, you just misinterpreted what I said. Easy mistake, I have a very underdeveloped theory of mind, so I often word things in ways that most people would mistake for having alternative meanings unintentionally.

Your last post is confusing to me. The one about violence declining. I just don't get the connection between my quote and your response. I don't recall saying anything about escalation in violence right now.

Well, you said Satanic influence is increasing. Most people that bring that up tend to claim that violence increasing is a sign of that, so I countered an assumed point. Sorry about that.

I did say that you are going to see a greater presence of Satan and his ilk. This will manifest itself in more and more unexplainable events.

This will range from 1/ the phenomenal skills of and illusionist or magician,

Yeah, but that is entirely explainable. Any occupation is liable to improve and develop more the longer it exists, and the more technologies can be used to improve it. Magic tricks and illusions are no different.

2/the escalating number and frequency of unexplained observances in the sky, which are, with the aid of cell phone cameras and video recorders, happening at an exponential rate, yes UFO's.

So many of those are faked, and a good portion more are just natural phenomena or human aircraft mistaken for UFOs. Hardly unexplainable.

3/ the increase in the number of tv shows and movies that deal with the spirit world, demigods, vampires, people with inhuman strength, powers or abilities,. The same dealing with UFO's, aliens, beings from another dimension, post apocalyptic themes and end time plots.

Everything wants to find its niche on TV. There are more shows in general. If you look at it as a percentage of shows rather than just number of them, I doubt the increase in shows dealing with those subjects is significant. I think a few of them are gone due to the popularity of them falling thanks to oversaturation in the media.

4/ Increasing friction between religions and killing based on the person's beliefs alone.

That is always happening. Can you even think of a period in the last 300 years in which a decade passed without some conflict with religion at its center happening somewhere?

5/ Corruption in government, military, businesses, and legal systems.

Again, this has always existed, we just have the ability to detect and reveal it better than people from hundreds of years ago.

5/ Increase in natural phenomenon or the threat of earthquakes, floods, extreme storms, celestial bodies, volcanoes, temperature fluctuations and the inability to predict these events.

The temperature fluctuations are partly our fault, and they contribute some to the extreme storms, but the frequency of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions have not gone up, we just record them better. And since when could people of the past accurately predict the weather?

6/ the increase in openness of the display of Satanic influence in modern music and it's presentation.

Those darn kids and their music! Sorry, I couldn't help it XD but I'll give you this one. That's been going on since the 1970s, though.

7/ the increase of science delving into cloning, hybridization of the human genome with animals including the production of super virus's and biological warfare.

As a person in the know about cloning technology, I can assure you that the cloning you are likely thinking of is quickly going into a dead end field. Cloned animals do not live as long as regular ones, and most of the animals we are most interested in cloning are very difficult and expensive to clone. The other ways of cloning are pretty much just late onset twin formation, so unless you view identical twins as abominations, you shouldn't be concerned about it.

Also, the major use of inserting human DNA in other organisms is to have them produce human hormones and other chemicals to treat diseases that cause deficiencies in them. Insulin, for example. We don't use it on viruses at all, because inserting a sequence of human DNA in a virus wouldn't make it more adept at infecting our cells (assuming it was a virus that uses DNA, as the majority use RNA). If we did use it for viruses, it would be to insert functioning genes into our cells to prevent genetic conditions that result from genes not functioning.

This is what I meant by Satan's presence. I will say that if violence was declining, we are about to see a rapid flip in that trend.

Thanks for explaining it in more detail, and I apologise about being presumptuous about the violence issue.

 

[JacksBratt]

Your video got shredded by facts -- you shouldn't be surprised.

Of course it did....

I would love to see 46and2 debate this guy one on one......

Of course it's okay -- you fell for the guy's slick style and fancy rhetoric... as have a lot of others, no doubt.

Ya, I guess I fell for the old head fake and slick moves.... as did the US court system...for 2 1/2 to 3 decades.... silly me.


Did you watch it?????

 

[JacksBratt]

Thanks, and I know what you mean. I have exams coming up, so it is really hard for me to get the responses in that I want to. Thankfully, I worked faster than expected today, so I am getting the chance to make a bunch of responses at once, and then call it a day to give my brain a break.

A virgin woman giving birth more than 2,000 years ago sounds as unbelievable to me as my brother being pregnant sounds to you. Btw, I can actually think of ways for either to be true, but then the former's child would have to be female, which is not what the bible says. Miracles are, by nature, supposed to defy what is conventionally possible, yes? So if you can believe in the miraculous virgin birth, why can't you believe in the miraculous male pregnancy? If such a thing was in your holy book, you'd believe it, but otherwise, you wouldn't? You see the problem here, right?

If the Bible said that a man gave birth as the result of a supernatural event.......ya, I'd believe it.

Wow, this guy needs to get his story straight. That's not how lots usually work, you pay to park there, not to leave XD XD XD. It would be more believable if he needed to borrow my phone because he locked himself out of his car, and his phone was still in the car. I know what you were going for, and in more realistic situations, if the sum exceeds a certain amount, I follow the person to their destination so that they can pay me back more easily, and they are less likely to back out and just take the money.


Anyone with a bit of sense would not believe that guy's story thanks to the unintentional discrepancy you left in it, and most people wouldn't bother with the trouble regardless of what they thought because they have nothing to gain from the situation if they take the leap of faith (which hardly makes this comparable to religion). I'm a bit of a sucker for people that are in bad situations, so I try to be cautious while still giving people the benefit of the doubt.

I was just trying to explain how any action would be a choice.

No I didn't, and the situation is closer to the opposite. I said there is evidence that what we observe arose from naturalistic means rather than from the influence of a deity. There really isn't any evidence for or against the existence of deities in general, at most, there is evidence against their involvement with the goings of the universe, and that's a bit of a stretch.


Nah, you just misinterpreted what I said. Easy mistake, I have a very underdeveloped theory of mind, so I often word things in ways that most people would mistake for having alternative meanings unintentionally.

Sorry for my misinterpretation.

Well, you said Satanic influence is increasing. Most people that bring that up tend to claim that violence increasing is a sign of that, so I countered an assumed point. Sorry about that.

No problem.

Yeah, but that is entirely explainable. Any occupation is liable to improve and develop more the longer it exists, and the more technologies can be used to improve it. Magic tricks and illusions are no different.

I agree, to a point. New technology, materials, engineering can produce more and more extravagant and intricate illusions and props for the trade. However, if you check out a few of the newest names in the art, I believe that you will see some truly impossible feats. Check out Dynamo, Yif, Cyril, or check this out:

Or watch the guys eyes in the first part of this one.

If this is not proof of supernatural events... I don't know what is.

So many of those are faked, and a good portion more are just natural phenomena or human aircraft mistaken for UFOs. Hardly unexplainable.

Yes, many are faked. However, I think you should check out some new information on this. It is now becoming epidemic with the technology that we have to capture the evidence. The ex-minister of defense for Canada has gone on record to say that they know what UFO's are and they are as real as the airplanes you and I fly in.

Everything wants to find its niche on TV. There are more shows in general. If you look at it as a percentage of shows rather than just number of them, I doubt the increase in shows dealing with those subjects is significant. I think a few of them are gone due to the popularity of them falling thanks to oversaturation in the media.

True enough. Again, Satan knows what he is doing. All of this is timed perfectly in order to precondition you for the reality that is coming.

That is always happening. Can you even think of a period in the last 300 years in which a decade passed without some conflict with religion at its center happening somewhere?

Again, true. However, this is exactly the religious unrest that is predicted by the scriptures. Keep your eyes on Jerusalem.

Again, this has always existed, we just have the ability to detect and reveal it better than people from hundreds of years ago.

I agree, again. Personally I believe that they are about to increase even more though. Just a quick google and I find contradiction between different sources. Some saying they are not as frequent and others saying that they are increasing. I never understand how this can happen with modern science.

This was one comment I read from Thundering-Heard :

People who dismiss major clear trends as "random" are anything but the scientists they are claiming to be, and are doing people a vast disservice. They would actually be helpful (instead of deceptive) if they would identify clear trends and, when those trends are dangerous, tell people to get out of the way! I am unable to paste a graphic here, so I'll place a link below instead to a post containing charts that clearly show:

--the increasing trend in major storms and floods since the mid-1980s (chart from Munich Re, the world's largest re-insurance company); and
--the uptrend in earthquakes 6.0 or greater that began 1993 (chart by me from the USGS database).

Depending on a person's location, these trends might get someone to rationally consider whether they should continue to live in major earthquake zones, near volcanoes, or along the seacoast. Perhaps someday these so-called "scientists" will do their job instead of telling us this is all random.

Three cheers to SOTT.NET for persistently documenting earth change events on a daily basis.

Earth changes statistical update

The temperature fluctuations are partly our fault, and they contribute some to the extreme storms, but the frequency of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions have not gone up, we just record them better. And since when could people of the past accurately predict the weather?

Sorry Sarah, but I will disagree here. I believe that there were rising temps, but I cannot agree that we caused it.
My view has been posted here many times. The sun is our only source of heat and the oceans store this heat. That is one huge system for us to alter even if we tried, IMO.

Interesting enough, Dr. Timothy Ball, out of the University of London, just announced that we will be entering into a mini ice age. This is due to a period of expected low solar activity. He also said, on the program I was listening to, that people are enjoying the warming trend of the earth and this coming cooling trend will not be taken well. Population density trends show that people are moving to climates where it is much more comfortable. This is happening in the US where people don't move out of the US but just move to more pleasant climates withing the continental USA.

Climate change is a hot topic and I'm not intending to start a debate. So, anyone reading Sarah and my conversation here should know that I will not perpetuate this topic with anyone or with any more of my views on this.

Those darn kids and their music! Sorry, I couldn't help it XD but I'll give you this one. That's been going on since the 1970s, though.

True enough. However, today artists are openly admitting their involvement with the devil and it is blatantly portrayed in their shows.

As a person in the know about cloning technology, I can assure you that the cloning you are likely thinking of is quickly going into a dead end field. Cloned animals do not live as long as regular ones, and most of the animals we are most interested in cloning are very difficult and expensive to clone. The other ways of cloning are pretty much just late onset twin formation, so unless you view identical twins as abominations, you shouldn't be concerned about it.

Also, the major use of inserting human DNA in other organisms is to have them produce human hormones and other chemicals to treat diseases that cause deficiencies in them. Insulin, for example. We don't use it on viruses at all, because inserting a sequence of human DNA in a virus wouldn't make it more adept at infecting our cells (assuming it was a virus that uses DNA, as the majority use RNA). If we did use it for viruses, it would be to insert functioning genes into our cells to prevent genetic conditions that result from genes not functioning.

You are very knowledgeable of this topic. I am aware that we can only go so far before things fall apart. The hybridization that I am speaking of is not only animal/human, but human/nephilim or fallen angel type stuff.
This is another deviation from the thread so I will leave it with my view that Satan and his ilk cannot "take human wives" again, as they did in Genesis 6, but they will take human DNA and mix it with theirs...

Thanks for explaining it in more detail, and I apologise about being presumptuous about the violence issue.

Thanks for understanding.

Overall, thanks for being tactful and real.