Bob Dutko: Why He Fails

,    »  -   107 Comments
20
6.11
12345678910
Ratings: 6.11/10 from 44 users.

Storyline

Bob Dutko: Why He Fails

Christian radio talk-show host and apologist Bob Dutko took the time to reply to the first video of the 10-part series, Top Ten (Failed) Proofs for God's Existence.

This first episode of that series dealt with the claim that the 1st law of thermodynamics and the creation of the universe combine to provide proof (not merely a suggestion) that God exists.

In Dutko's response, which is addressed in this current video, he accused the author of all sorts of "debate tricks and tactics."

However, it was he who failed to understand the reference to the physics behind the big bang and continued to merely assert that "Goddidit" is a sufficient answer for how this supernatural force created a material universe.

More great documentaries

107 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Alec Mowat

    I love how atheists always talk in this slow, monotone, logical voice. Always very specific, very unemotional.

    Not saying he's wrong.

    Just saying he has a very good marketing strategy, by pitching himself as a very cold, thoughtful logical person. So yes, he is also using debate tactics.

    I guess, what's more human? Over the top, frantic, aggressive and emotional responses? Or scripted, computerized, logical and cold, focused responses? Neither of them have the answer; both are good salesmen.

  2. robertallen1

    But you forget, Bob Dutko is the charlatan.
    P.S. It's neither of them HAS the answer.

  3. Kateye70

    "I love how atheists always talk in this slow, monotone, logical voice. Always very specific, very unemotional." Nothing like extrapolating from a single sample to an entire broad spectrum of individuals, lol.

    I for one appreciate a clear, methodical delivery when trying to actually follow a speaker's logic when following a debate point.

    If someone is handing you a "patter" it means they're hoping you can't follow their dance-steps and won't call them out on inconsistencies, because they don't lead to a logical conclusion!

    Most talk-show hosts--of any persuasion, and including Dutko--are overweening blowhards who think if they talk fast enough and loud enough, they'll be perceived as right, even when they're wrong. (I can't stand most talk shows, as you can imagine!)

  4. robertallen1

    And what's especially disgusting is the amount of money these phonies make?

  5. thinkagainagain

    I don't know. I find it amusing. It isn't the huckster who is being stupid. The mark is the one throwing his money into a black hole. That's what I find amusing.

  6. thinkagainagain

    Do we not all listen to a "patter" which agrees with our internal "patter"? It's called vanity which we all are guilty.

  7. Harry Nutzack

    "no, my mama dont wear no combat boots, but yours sure do!" ad nauseum

  8. over the edge

    what part of the atheist premise states you can get something from nothing ? all that is required to be an atheist is the lack of belief in the god claims of others. an understanding of the Big Bang or any other area of science is not a prerequisite for atheism.

  9. Schwoggle

    When the first thing came into existence where did it come from? And if there was no first thing there is nothing now including this posting.

  10. robertallen1

    Religious websites are hardly scientific sources.

  11. Harry Nutzack

    "no matter yet existed" is NOT "nothing existed". therein lies the HUGE problem with giving your ear to willful primitives hawking superstitious mumbo-jumbo. worse yet is giving it to those same willful primitives pretending to apply science.

    all the ingredients for matter already existed, making up a vast "sea" of equilibrium. the "debate" is whether that "sea" was hyper- or hypo-energetic. in either case, an event kicked in entropy, disturbing that placid equilibrium, and a few billion years later, we have this discussion. whether this event was "all encompassing" or "localized" (both on an extremely HUGE scale of course) is also debatable.

    your statement is akin to the teenager who, upon seeing a pantry full of flour, eggs, milk, and baking powder declares "there's no food in the house!!" because a pile of steaming pancakes isn't in front of his eyes.

  12. robertallen1

    It's like these idiots who claim that light was created during the big bang. The photons were there, but that's it. Light didn't come about until about 300,000 years later.

  13. Harry Nutzack

    i tend to place the causation of ignorance on the subject to "GIGO" (garbage in, garbage out). there are many folks credentialed for teaching science who would be better employed delivering pizza. a few "work an agenda", but most are just plain clueless. the clueless actually do more damage, as their "honest effort" usually reinforces incredibly wrong positions (like "there was nothing"). "unlearning" errata is often more difficult than overcoming complete ignorance, or so i have observed on many occasions.

  14. Dean Edgington

    Maybe youre missing the point. Anyway, fwiw and imho Dutko lost the "debate".

  15. Wayne Siemund

    There is a postulation that the material was in a zero (null) state and the 'big bang' was the separation of that null state into a positive and a negative state. The trigger mechanism is an even greater unknown but there have been suggestions it was from an interaction between dimensions. But where those dimensions came from just leads farther down the rabbit hole.

  16. robertallen1

    To them a vacuum is "nothing" and will always be "nothing."

    Speaking of the teaching of science, the only organization of which I am a member is the National Center for Science Education--and I'm neither a teacher nor a scientist. I like the organization, not only because of what it stands for, but because the more political it is, the better a job it will do.

  17. robertallen1

    Speaking of debate, what do you think of the reasons given for not engaging Dutko directly on his show?

  18. Harry Nutzack

    "nothing" is kind of relative, in that the concept is entirely dependent on frame of reference. an "empty" whiskey bottle may contain no obvious potable, but even if drawn to 30 inches of mercury vacuum still contains "something", as evidenced by the propagation of light through it. that "something" will never make a suitable ingredient for a whiskey sour however.

    kudos to you for supporting such an org, and wholehearted agreement on the idea that the teaching of unvarnished science requires a political component in our country. it's a crying shame that such is true, as such topics as science, math, and language should ideally be above such outside influences.

  19. robertallen1

    "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep." Talk about something out of nothing--and this nothing isn't even kind of relative!!
    For something truly moronic, listen to Penny Nance's rant on You Tube against the evils of reason and enlightenment.

  20. Dean Edgington

    Hi Robert. Do you mean Dutko not wanting to engage Brett Palmer on his show or the other way around? I ask cuz I'm not aware of the Brett Palmer show, only his video presentations. Have I missed something?

    BTW, I should have said Dutko is loosing the debate, hopefully there will be more, I'm looking forward to Dutko's reply.

  21. Dean Edgington

    I'll have a listen, but not on a full stomach ;-)

  22. robertallen1

    The other way around. Mr. Palmer gave a few reasons why he would not take up Dutko's challenge to appear on his [Dutko's] show. I was seeking your opinion as to the validity of Mr. Palmer's reasons. Laurence Krauss appeared via telephone on a creationist's talk show and basically ripped the creationist a new one. The audio is on You Tube.
    P.S. I have five shekels which says that Dutko will not be replying.

  23. robertallen1

    I'll be waiting for you to vomit forth your opinion.

  24. Dean Edgington

    bleeuuughhh...I don’t remember eating that! Anyway, exactly what I’ve come to expect from these right-winged religious nut jobs.

    If only they could hear themselves. But they are too busy pontificating to stop and listen if they are making any sense. Ok, I'm being a little unfair, they are easy targets for ridicule.

    Thank sheer luck we don't have much of this in the UK. Then again, we have the abhorrent British class system. I’ll trade ya.

  25. robertallen1

    I know. She makes Sara and Michelle seem profound--and like them, she has a great body, just not a mind to match.
    P.S. If I were able to make the trade, I probably would.

  26. Dean Edgington

    I reckon you are right, that's probably the last we'll hear from Dutko on this matter, but sadly not THE last.

    TBH I wasn’t aware Palmer had declined Dutko's challenge. I must have missed that. I think his video reply here deals Dutko quite a blow but a live debate would been fun. Who knows, watch this space I guess - fingers crossed.

    It's always hard to be sure if one is being objective but I’ve yet to see "our side" lose a debate to these "religulous" cranks. I've watched Dawkins, Hitchens and all the rest debate some pretty serious, heavy weight, intellectual theologians (not just the soft targets like fundamentalist literalist jokers) and they often come away quite defeated IMHO. Even the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams (who seems like a nice, reasonable bloke) had very little meaningful to say in defense of his faith when up against Dawkins.

    I find fundamentalism offensive and the Church of England, as reasonable and as nice as they seem, increasingly irrelevant*.

    *Religiously but not politically irrelevant: they often come out to criticise economic inequality which I welcome because the establishment still respects the CofE to some degree even though the general public is quite indifferent towards it.

  27. Dean Edgington

    It's like trading blindness for deafness...it's a tricky one.

    Pls remind me who Sara and Michelle are? I'm aware of Gellar and Coulter. Both quite fit (for their age). Certainly fit enough to wanna see them mud wrestle to the death. I don't care who wins btw.

    Sorry Girls if this thread had descended into man bar chat but we are objectifying right-wingers so it’s ok ;-)

  28. Dean Edgington

    Ah yeh, I've seen Dawkins and Krauss chat...very good and Krauss is quite funny.

  29. robertallen1

    I forgot, you're British. Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.
    No need to apologize to the girls. They've heard it all.

  30. Harry Nutzack

    rofl, rofl, rofl.... well, now i see the potential vacuum source for drawing down the whiskey bottle, ms nance's cranial cavity! that will save me quite a bit of hand pumping with my my-t-vac hand rig.

  31. Dean Edgington

    I know Palin but not Bachman. I'm guessing she sounds like Palin, Geller, Coulter, Nance...

    We have some pretty repellent right-winged Women in the UK but nothing on the scale of the above. I guess the nearest equivalent would be the daft and much derided Ann Widdecombe (a.k.a. Doris Karloff).

  32. robertallen1

    Watched a few videos with Ms. Widdecombe and while I'm opposed to what she stands for (there is no defense for Catholicism), I'm happy to say that she does not come up to the level of Palin, Coulter or Bachman and never in her wildest dreams to Ms. Nance. So I'll be happy to make that trade you mentioned. We get your aristocracy and you get our trash.

  33. Dean Edgington

    Agreed Robert.

    After giving it some thought I think I'll stick with our bunch of inbred Aristos and Aristo-wannabes, you can keep your inbred chick hicks. Ah *a light goes on*. Being inbred seems to be the problem here (and over there) ;-)

    Joking aside, apart from a few High-Tory types who write for the Daily Mail, we have very little over here that compares with the trash you have to endure. Nance et al tarnishes what is otherwise a truly great nation.

  34. robertallen1

    But again, so does Hillary et al.

  35. Dean Edgington

    Yes, and I'm sorry you and for the rest of us given the wider ramifications. God help us all ;-)

  36. Alec Mowat

    You missed his point. If you took all of the positive energy, and all of the negative energy (gravity), and added it together, you would get 0. Technically, nothing exists.

    Science is about discovering how you get something from nothing. Religion is about ignoring the evidence we do have and staying with the old text book.

  37. Tronald dump

    Are there things out there that we as a society can't explain? Sure all around us, everyday. But to just dismiss them and say, some spirit somewhere did it. That's the easy way out, the cowards way out, creationism is a joke, I could say aliens from a different dimension kick started the Big Bang when they were trying to time travel. There s no proof for or against so it must be true. Thank you aliens for inadvertently creating our universe.

  38. Tom1981

    In the case of Christianity, however, it is all about embracing the evidence. Even the enemies of the early Christians agreed that the tomb of Jesus was empty. That point was never contested. Christians do not ignore the evidence of history. Jesus was an historical person, crucified under Pontius Pilate, when Tiberius was Emperor of Rome.

  39. robertallen1

    "In the case of Christianity, however, it is all about embracing the evidence." Like the "evidence" that the early is only 6,000 years old? Like the "evidence" of a worldwide flood?" Like the "evidence" that life was created spontaneously? Like the "evidence" of the Garden of Eden along with talking snake?

    "Even the enemies of the early Christians agreed that the tomb of Jesus was empty." Where else, other than in the New Testament?

  40. jackmax

    Can you provide your source of reference other than the book of lies you call the bible.?

  41. Tom1981

    I'm glad that you asked. One example is the medieval Jewish polemic "Toledot Yeshu," which records the story of a worker in the garden where the body of Jesus was buried. According to the author, the man discovered a plot by the disciples of Jesus to come by night and steal the body. Upon learning of this, the gardener, named "Juda," took it first and disposed of it in another grave. He then reported his actions to the Temple authorities. The "Toledot Yeshu" is not a biblical book, and does not come from a Christian source. Scholars disagree regarding its date, but it, like other Jewish responses to the resurrection of Jesus, do not dispute the emptiness of His tomb. That fact was never disputed. The disagreement was always about how it came to be that way. P.S. - In answering your question I do not concede that the Bible is a "book of lies" as you allege.

  42. robertallen1

    Why didn't you mention that although the Toedot Yeshu cannot be dated precisely, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MUCH BEFORE THE 4TH CENTURY A.D.? Or is this part of your general dishonesty?
    For anyone interested, a detailed article on the work can be found on Wikipedia.

  43. Tom1981

    Robert, with all due respect, I clearly stated that the story was "medieval," i.e. from the Middle Ages. How was I being dishonest? The fact is, what it says was/is consistent with other Jewish responses to the empty tomb.

  44. robertallen1

    Any fairly contemporary Jewish writings? How about some contemporary secular sources? In other words, something which could not have been copied from earlier documents?

    You sound so much like William Lane Craig and his boetian reasons for the truth of the resurrection (empty tomb)--and believe me, that's not a compliment

  45. jackmax

    Just finished reading the wikipedia and was about to reply when I scrolled down to basically see my answer in your reply

    Cheers Robert..;)

  46. Bad Conduct

    You completely missed the point. Who cares if Jesus' body isn't in the tomb? There's many possible explanations for that, from "it's not his tomb" to "it rotted away".
    Why don't you show me evidence, on the tomb, that he walked out?

  47. Tom1981

    Robert,

    You speak of boetian reasoning. That’s disappointing. I was hoping to engage in a respectful dialogue. I don’t see how personal attacks really accomplish anything. Going forward, I hope that we can avoid the ad hominem and focus on the subject at hand. Also, you mentioned William Lane Craig. I have read one of his books, but that was over a decade ago. In all honesty, I wouldn’t say that it had a significant influence one way or the other on my thinking. So, just to clarify, I’m not carrying any water for him in my responses in this discussion.

    I do wish to apologize, though, for my delay in responding to your question. I’ve been very busy. You asked about contemporary Jewish and secular documents re. Christ’s tomb. Your question is not unreasonable. I would answer that three of the four Gospels are among those Jewish documents (Luke was a Gentile), but I can also understand why you would object. No thinking person appreciates circular reasoning or special pleading and any appeal to the testimony of the Gospels at this stage would seem to be exactly that. Fair enough. Do keep in mind, however, that the authors of those Gospels risked persecution, imprisonment, and martyrdom for teaching and preaching the empty tomb of Jesus. Are we to believe that they did so for something they all knew was false? If they were lying, they must have all had a death wish.

    That said, is there another way to know what the prevailing Jewish response was to the Christian claim regarding the empty tomb of Jesus? I would answer, “Yes.” We have that recorded for us in the writings of a man named Justin Martyr, specifically in his work, the "Dialogue with Trypho." FYI, there are good articles on both Justin and "The Dialogue" to be found on Wikipedia, as well as Britannica online. In addition, the article at New Advent(dot)org is very helpful. It discusses not only the details of Justin's life but also the various emphases of his teaching and his philosophical/theological method. In the interests of full disclosure, New Advent(dot)org is a Roman Catholic website.

    Justin was born in the Second Century (c. 100 AD), in the city of Flavia Neapolis (now Nablus, on the West Bank). He was a native of Palestine and in contact with the Jews of his day. In addition, he ministered in an era in which some of those who had known and worked side-by-side with the apostles were still alive, like St. Polycarp for example. Justin wrote defenses of Christianity to two Roman emperors – better have one’s facts straight for something like that. As you might guess, “Martyr” was not his last name. He was ultimately put to death in Rome for his faith in Jesus Christ.

    In "The Dialogue," Justin sought to demonstrate the truth of Christianity to a Jew he called “Trypho” by meeting him on his own ground. He argued that Jesus was the messiah foretold by the Old Testament prophets as well as the preexisting Logos spoken of by the great pagan philosophers. During the course of their discussion (Chapter 108), Justin made the following statement:

    And though all the men of your nation knew the incidents in the life of Jonah, and though Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead, and to mourn before God as did the Ninevites, in order that your nation and city might not be taken and destroyed, as they have been destroyed; yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilæan deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. Moreover, you accuse Him of having taught those godless, lawless, and unholy doctrines which you mention to the condemnation of those who confess Him to be Christ, and a Teacher from and Son of God. Besides this, even when your city is captured, and your land ravaged, you do not repent, but dare to utter imprecations on Him and all who believe in Him. Yet we do not hate you or those who, by your means, have conceived such prejudices against us; but we pray that even now all of you may repent and obtain mercy from God, the compassionate and long-suffering Father of all.

    As I said earlier, the consistent Jewish response to the resurrection of Jesus was that His disciples had stolen His body. They never attempted to refute the Christians by pointing out the “correct” grave, assuming that the Christians had gone to the wrong one on that first Easter. They never put the corpse of Jesus on public display to silence the Christians once and for all, which they would not have hesitated to do if it were still physically in the tomb. Instead, as St. Matthew recorded in his Gospel in the First Century; as Justin confirmed in the Second; and as a Jewish author repeated in the "Toledot Yeshu" after that, the Jewish response remained the same: the tomb of Jesus was empty because the disciples had stolen His body. That explanation was their consistent response. Why? It was their consistent response because the empty tomb was common knowledge and an alternative to the Christian explanation was required.

    Other, more general references to Jesus from contemporary Jewish and secular sources may be found in "The Antiquities of the Jews" (Book 18, Chap. 3, Sect. 3 and Book 20, Chap. 9, Sect. 1) by Flavius Josephus, himself a Jew, and in the "Annals" of the Roman historian, Tacitus (Book XV, Chapter 44).

  48. Tom1981

    Jackmax,

    I've just posted another response to this discussion that I hope proves useful. Let me know what you think. Best wishes to you.

  49. over the edge

    Tom1981

    i changed the links for Advent(dot)org from "," to "(dot)" as they did not go to a specific article.if a link is to a page and not a specific article please use (dot). also please limit links to three per post max. thank you

  50. robertallen1

    Yes, I've read all these works.
    The only contemporary secular work you cite is Josephus (probably because it is the only one we have) which is unreliable both on account of the manuscript and the man himself. Tacitus glosses over Jesus in two sentences as do Lucian and Pliny. Justin Martyr, is simply a second hand account written about a century after the supposed event.
    With all this, I certainly hope that you do not believe that the empty tomb was the result of anything supernatural and furthermore, I hope that you do not support an ignorant piece of trash such as Bob Dutko.

  51. jackmax

    G'day Mate

    It appears you have far more knowledge on this subject than I.
    One of the biggest problems I'm facing is how can any one trust any writing by people with only second or third hand knowledge . What I mean is when something is written 100AD how can it be taken as accurate?

  52. jackmax

    Explain, this "Justin asserts that Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the entire divine logos and thus of these basic truths, whereas only traces of truth were found in the great works of the pagan philosophers" as per your reference .

    How can any one assert such a claim without proof or actually being there, for example, the known life expectancy of a man currently in Australia is around 70 to 75 years, and a women is about five to ten years longer.

    As I say that's with the advancements, though medical science, all can be proven by peer review. Then only if their own peers agree on there finding is it believed to be accurate, unlike anything I have come across from the argument from the other side to this date i.e all your writings or 'scriptures' or at least two to three generations removed from the source.

  53. robertallen1

    Often through corroborating evidence. For example, for some time, there were doubts as to the authenticity of Tacitus, all of which were dispelled through later archaeological finds.
    In this respect, I suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on Mt. Vesuvius, and compare the scientific finds with the contemporary accounts.
    As for "Jesus," there is little doubt that such a person existed and was crucified--but agreement ends there. First of all, "Jesus" was a common name at the time. He is also briefly mentioned by Tacitus, Lucian and Pliny who, though living and writing some time later, were noted NON-CHRISTIAN, NON-JEWISH historians and intellectuals of their time, hardly people to be swayed by the gospels or other now-lost Christian works.
    I could go on, but I think this will give you some idea.

  54. robertallen1

    Claire gives a shout out to MessianicManiac as well. As MessianicManiac points out, like all Christian apologists, WLC simply places his silly religion before everything, including evidence.

    Creationism is an embarrassment to anyone with a brain and half an education. And speaking of creationism, one good turn deserves another. I would appreciate if you would read an article by Alex Ritchie entitled, "Will the Real Dr. Snelling Please Stand Up?" and, of course, provide your opinion. A link.might be in order.

    I have been communicating with Claire and have invited her to join TDF, explaining that I learned about her through you.

    Have you had a chance to look over the article on orange lobsters turning up in a Maine restaurant which I cited last week?

  55. robertallen1

    1. Yes.
    2. "Extremely Rare Orange Lobsters Turn Up in Mass Restaurant." Sorry, wrong state.

  56. robertallen1

    1. Snelling is a hypocrite and an insult to all the fine, dedicated geologists in the world, not to mention the discipline of geology itself. I would rather see Snelling have a "talk" with Claire.

    2. I'm just wondering if we're going to see more orange lobsters. If we do, that might signal some sort of genetic change. Three cheers for evolution!

  57. jackmax

    G'day Robert,

    That article was helpful, and I agree with popular names of both periods and locations.
    With the advancement of science to improve our knowledge on how we have developed through evolution. Why do so many people who some of which appear to be intelligent, still believe in some supernatural santaclaus magic man.

  58. robertallen1

    Perhaps the operative word is "appear." It certainly can't be "intelligent."

  59. jackmax

    I would have to agree after due thought...:)

  60. Tom1981

    Dear Jackmax,

    In his "Dialogue With Trypho," Justin was relating what Jews were saying about the empty tomb of Jesus in his own day as well as restating what was initially said in the immediate aftermath of the first Easter. Justin's comments re. his own day and age are not second or third-hand accounts but represent his first-hand experiences in talking with Jews about Jesus Christ.

  61. Tom1981

    Dear Jackmax,

    Justin did not teach or write as an apostle, i.e. one who had been commissioned by Christ Himself to speak and write with His authority. Justin taught what he did based upon his understanding of scripture and the teachings of the great pagan philosophers of the past.

    I'm not sure what "scriptures" you are referencing, however. The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by two of the Twelve Disciples of Jesus and therefore were first generation eyewitnesses. Mark wrote his Gospel as he accompanied Peter as he preached and taught, and Luke did the same with Paul. In addition, we have letters from the hand of Paul, John, Peter, and others as well in the New Testament. All this is first generation, eyewitness material. I'm not sure what you're referring to that is two or three generations removed from the sources.

  62. robertallen1

    A century after the event!

  63. robertallen1

    Don't lie!
    We don't know who wrote any of the synoptic gospels. The authorships are merely later attributions and we also have no idea what these books originally contained. So much for Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The earliest work is 1 Thessalonians which dates to about 49 CE., over a decade after the crucifixtion. The following Pauline epistles are of doubtful authorship, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians and 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus were clearly not written by Paul as they involved issues which arose long after his death: Peter was probably too illiterate to have written anything. In short, we have no first generation eyewitness accounts.
    You also neglected to mention that the accounts related in the synoptic gospels differ in major ways, i.e., what did "Jesus" actually say on the cross? .
    You took offense to boeotian, well how about mendacious and deceptive for starters?

  64. over the edge

    i disagree when you state "All this is first generation, eyewitness material." as there are no originals in existence. we have copies of copies of copies... with changes, edits and copying errors along the way. not to mention the translations and add ons included in the gospels. to make things even worse most scholars agree that there were multiple authors for the gospels and there is no convincing proof that they are written by the claimed authors.

  65. robertallen1

    Right you are. Only let me add that we're talking about the consensus of MAINSTREAM biblical scholars the world over for at least the last two or three centuries. That's why I see red when those like Tom1981 deliberately lie about the series of books they endorse just as I see red when creationists such as Andrew Snelling, Ian Juby, Carl Baugh and Steve Austin deliberately lie about science.

  66. robertallen1

    You asked a perfectly valid question as to the accuracy of texts written around 100 A.D.? It's an insult not only to you, but to biblical scholarship in general, that Tom1981 responded with a set of lies, distortions and omissions.

  67. jackmax

    When you say "Justin taught what he did based upon his understanding of scripture and the teachings of the great pagan philosophers of the past." Justin's understanding of scriptures has human failings there alone. How can we take one mans account of events that he has read copies about 100 year after the said event.

    The new testament has been shown on other threads on this site to be the fairytale it is.

  68. jackmax

    G'day Robert,

    I'm learning very quickly that as the argument the believers put forward are the same, it gets very boring. Due to their own beliefs being questioned and their unwillingness for them to accept the truth rather than the lies they have been told and the lies they have told.

  69. jackmax

    If most scholars agree Trypho is a fictional character, made up by Justin does that put doubt the honesty of Justin's writings?

  70. robertallen1

    Over the Edge:
    Are you familiar with "The Preaching Atheist." If not, I suggest that you watch one of his videos entitled "God Struck Down DOMA--The Bible Says So." Perhaps a link is in order. I have invited Mr. Allison to join TDF for reasons best explained in his video, "Brief History of the Preaching Atheist." Your thoughts would be appreciated.

  71. robertallen1

    I'm waiting for your opinion with bated breath.
    Since I wrote to you, he wrote back to me saying that he would check out TDF.

  72. over the edge

    i liked it (only watched the first one time limitations today). his knowledge and unique angle coupled with the sarcasm if good. i am sure the religious will have an out for this approach (the devil?). i hope he does stop by TDF and give his views.

  73. robertallen1

    I can hardly wait for both.

  74. Tom1981

    Not at all. The creation of a fictional character with which to dialogue was a common practice as a literary device in that day, no more and no less. The dialogue format can then make the presentation of both sides of an argument more engaging, interesting, and easier to follow. Fictional characters in a dialogue do not make their points or positions untrue. Trypho represented in "The Dialogue" the Jewish position viz. Christianity. It was to that position that Justin sought to make his case - and he wouldn't have persuaded many Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah if he misrepresented them, or their history, or their scriptures, or how they were responding to Jesus.

  75. robertallen1

    So you're basing your contention on the artificial statement of a fictional character created a century after the events. I cannot find anything to indicate that Justin Martyr convinced many Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah. As a matter of fact, his Hebrew was probably minimal. So until you can support this, based on your track record, I am regarding this statement as yet another lie.

    Let me remind you that you lied about the authorship of the synoptic gospels as well as the existence of firsthand accounts. Therefore, there is no reason to trust anything you post. Rest assured, that if you post any more untruths or distortions, I will not hesitate to expose them.

  76. jackmax

    If Tyrpho was a fictional character how can the dialogue of one man to himself be accepted as anything more than a fable.

    " Fictional characters in a dialogue do not make their points or positions untrue." As the honesty and integrity is of utmost importance, the "dialogue" was one persons own imagination as with most novelist/writers. Considering Justin's proved to be a liar, At best he could be called a novelist as he wrote fiction.

  77. hintofbutane

    I'm totally gonna check it out too.... word up!

  78. robertallen1

    Since I last wrote to you I have watched a number of his videos and they are all worthwhile. In addition, I have communicated with him several times. Hope he will take up my invitation to join TDF.

  79. robertallen1

    And docoman

    Check out "The Preaching Atheist," especially "God Struck Down DOMA--The Bible Tells Me So."

  80. jackmax

    I've watched the two links over the edge put up in a prior post.

    It would be interesting to have old matey join TDF, he may bring new debates/discussions to this and many other documentaries and threads.

  81. robertallen1

    I've been in communication with him and am trying my best. Perhaps you could write to him as well and subscribe to his channel. He seems quite communicative.

  82. Tom1981

    Jackmax,

    How was Justin proved to be a liar? In this context, a "dialogue" is a work of literature written in the form of a conversation, no more and no less. Plato wrote dialogues too. It is merely a literary technique in which the characters in it represent certain viewpoints. It's not lying unless the author knowingly misrepresents the real views of the parties each of the characters is to represent. Justin isn't a liar just because he used this literary technique. Also, the "Dialogue With Trypho" is not a fable if the characters within it accurately portray those parties they are intended to represent.

  83. robertallen1

    Plato's characters are merely abstractions of philosophical concepts with no claim to historicity. With this in mind, how do you know that Trypho is an accurate portrayal? Or is this yet another of your fabrications?

  84. Tom1981

    No, I'm not basing my statement "on the artificial statement of a fictional character created a century after the events." I base my statement on what Justin said Jews were actually saying in his own day as recorded in a work of literature called "The Dialogue With Trypho." Second, whether or not Jews responded positively to his outreach to them is irrelevant. What does that have to do with the historical accuracy of Justin's statement? How does its accuracy depend upon that? Third, you have every right to respond to my posts as you wish. As I said before, I was looking forward to an honest, respectful discussion with you. Fourth, your comments that I have lied, however, cross the line. You have every right to disagree with me. You have every right to reject what I say. That's fine. However, to accuse me of knowingly and deliberately making false statements, in other words of lying, is out of bounds. I have not disrespected you in any way during the course of our exchange and would not knowingly do so now. Therefore, with all due respect, I believe that you owe me an apology.

  85. robertallen1

    As your statements on the authorship of the books constituting the New Testament and your claim of first generation eyewitness accounts are complete lies, you're not going to get any respect from me.

    In addition, you now state, "whether or not Jews responded positively to his outreach to them is irrelevant" which gives the lie to your earlier statement, "he [Justin Martyr] wouldn't have persuaded many Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah if he misrepresented them, or their history, or their scriptures, or how they were responding to Jesus." In addition, you have presented no evidence demonstrating that Justin Martyr convinced manyJews to accept Jesus as a Messiah or that his fictional portrayal of Trypho is historically accurate. At best your statements are groundless, at worst deceptive.

    And get this straight, you don't determine what is out of bounds!

    Once again and with all due lack of respect, if you post any more untruths or distortions, I will not hesitate to expose you and them.

  86. jackmax

    G'day Robert,

    I read your post in his comment section, and I will go over there and introduce myself and promote this wonderful site (TDF).

    The more people become members of this site, ideally the more actual conversing about each of the topics may present itself, and for me the more incentive for me to research about topics I doubt I otherwise would have with the want to learn and broaden my own knowledge. ie The conversation we're having about the monotremes . Expanding ones own knowledge on any subject should only enhance their worth. If he's able to relay that knowledge accurately to our next generation in my opinion.

  87. robertallen1

    Please do and you are free to use me as a reference. Could you also do the same for "Coffee with Claire?" And then to top it off, get your luntsman to do the same.

  88. robertallen1

    Over_the_Edge
    Just a suggestion, but it might be a good idea if you would invite Bobby Allison "The Preaching Atheist." to join TDF. As you know, I have already done so and Jackmax promises to follow in my footsteps. We can certainly use a poster of his caliber and personal experience. Ditto for "Coffee with Claire." Please feel free to use my name in this regard. Your thoughts.

  89. Stan Amon

    What is GOD? No one knows. We humans simply don't have the brain to comprehend the answer to this question. That would be like expecting bacteria to comprehend what we are and understand our values. human progress in science is still in it's infancy and can't be used to prove or disprove god's existence, whatever god may be. Science only debunks the Bible and nothing more. Religion should never be used to explain the natural world, only careful observation, the collection of data and interpretation of that data (which is the definition of science).

  90. jim

    the big bang theory is flawed, red shifts in quasars,hello? the universe aint expanding.

  91. Richard Kaczmarczyk

    I believe in "Lord of The Rings", it makes me feel good.

  92. Tronald dump

    And where did you get you PhD in Astro physics. Oh that's right, opinions are meaningless in science.

  93. Terry "OldFox" Seale

    Wondering why anyone would expend so much energy, time, and video storage to beat a dead horse. Christians, I understand, are motivated to save souls and give a reason for their faith (apologetics), but why anti-Christians are motivated escapes me. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, PhD, offers perfectly scientific, logical, and intellectual arguments for the Big Bang (something out of nothing--ex nihilo) as described in Genesis 1:1. Please see ReasonsToBelieve.org.

  94. docoman

    You don't understand why anti-Christians are motivated? A few days ago you claimed to know all about what atheists think. Many atheists are also anti-Christian. You claimed you "reject religion", and "Religion is an attempt by Man to figure out how he can please or get to God by what Man does.", but also claim to be Christian. It's a strange contradiction that you're now saying you don't understand anti-Christians, and whats more you point towards religious texts being accurate. So which is it Terry, do you reject religion and Man's attempt to please 'God', or do you suggest the Bible is the word of 'God' and are defending the Christian religion, as you did the Church leaders in the current child abuse cases?

  95. Terry "OldFox" Seale

    Again, you are saying that I did something that simply isn't true, docman. I told you that what you're doing is just a Scientology ploy to irritate people for your own trollish amusement. I'm not talking or reading YOU any longer because you are dishonest.

  96. jackmax

    Maaaate,

    Could you show me where in Docomans post he has dishonest?
    You were on another thread say that you know what atheist think then you come on here and state " why anti-Christians are motivated escapes me", so it appears you're the one that's being dishonest.
    To add to your dishonesty you have stated that you were an atheist until the age of 35. So it seems to me that you have had a period in your own life that you were anti christian. What motivation did you have prior to being "born again".

  97. docoman

    Lol, nice try again at ducking any questions.
    How exactly have I been dishonest Terry? Care to prove your accusation? Your Bible also mentions bearing false witness Terry. Naughty boy.

    I don't care if you read my posts, you haven't bothered to answer most questions anyway, exactly as you just did again. It's not all only about you Terry. I also answered your absurd Scientology remarks already. Try a new lie Terry, that's already been shot down.

    That's the best non-answer you've got? You have the usual religee tactic of not actually answering any direct questions down pat. You contradict yourself, claim knowledge you can't have, and when questioned you get all defensive and then try a mixture of victim and ad hominem. You poor old thing, don't like being questioned. Well, too bad.

    Your BS won't wash Terry. I'll point out your BS if I like, just as you can try to prove I'm dishonest. Good luck with that, you're either completely deluded, or you know you're the one that's being dishonest, as with your first post on here coupled with your posts on the other religious thread, so I'm betting you won't even attempt your twisted logic. It's already a 'fact' in your head anyway, isn't it? You were the one saying facts were what YOU believed to be true were you not? Why try to show any evidence, you haven't for anything else you've claimed and been asked to provide evidence for. lol if you have anything more then BS and hot air, it'd be a change to hear it. Go hard old fella, if you can...

  98. docoman

    I forgot Terry said that about himself being an atheist. Apparently, he's anti-religious, but yet Christian. Religion is Man made, yet the Bible is accurate. He knows everything about a particular position because he was one, but then doesn't know someones motivation for a similar position.
    I'm a liar and use apparent Scientology tactics because I question his lack of condemning Church leaders for their illegal and immoral actions with the Child Abuse in their ranks, and dare to question his statements.
    Hmm, maybe he's one of those Therian weirdo's, hence the 'oldfox' reference? It wouldn't surprise me. :)
    Then again, he may not be lying this time. He said 'it escapes him'... it's obvious there's lots of other things that do too.

  99. jackmax

    The truth seems to escape him on a regular basis from what I've read of his. May be if he pulled he head out of his a$$, he may just stop talking sh1t.
    But then anyone how claims to been everything from an arms merchant to crime commission volunteer and everything in between including a masters degree (I'm guessing it was a masters in bullsh1tology) would be able to spin a yarn as no doubt he'd think he had a silver tongue.

    It amazes me that so many people still today believe in such nonsense like religion considering how advance we have become with all other aspects our lives.

  100. Beth Hebert

    My Good God , Bob Dutko is a dangerous, uneducated turd. The terribly misfortunate part of any of this are the feeble dupes who follow his oblivious rants. They would rather have Bob tell them how to live and think and he's riding high on that. $$$

    I love this documentary though. The Narrator is relentless but he's articulate and well spoken.

    Being a Nurse I see many beautiful and miraculous things that have me wondering if maybe there is something greater that we can't always explain.

  101. GI_jayne

    I live in the area that Bob Dutko has his radio show. I have called the show several times and debated him, he is VERY dangerous. He has absolutely NO qualifications, no education to back his claims and yet he speaks in absolutes about science that he is not qualified to speak on. And the people who listen to him think that because Bob uses big words that he must be right and they believe him and then they tell their kids this nonsense and then it continues. It is dangerous and needs to be corrected! I think this guy is great, and I wish he could have a radio show here in Michigan just to inform people of the truth, so that at least some people could make informed decisions of if they want to believe the nonsense that Dutko spreads, or the truth.

  102. Me

    Interesting however that Hawking himself stated that the probability of evrything occurring seems to point towards a creative hand working.

  103. Juan Buatista

    Let's look at the attrocities of atheists ie Mao and Stalin let's look at what non religion has brought us. You are seriously being honest when you can say religious people commit unspeakable acts but than not hold the same standard to atheists and let's be frank you cannot try to live morally within a faith system that rejects morality or states that morality is all realitive.

  104. Will Buracus

    Now here is the freshest truth on this board..meet source...humans. You've been schooled

  105. misscellaneous

    It's HE and I. Not him and I. You'd think someone who makes a living talking would know that.

  106. Michael H

    Almost 8 minutes In before he gets to the first point. Get on with it!

  107. Don Giovanni

    It funny you didn't mention once whe

Leave a comment / review: