Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "‘Inexcusably egocentric’ to believe there is no other life in universe" video.

  1. I’m confused. What year was the alleged Jesus born according to the bible?
    2
  2.  @magnumrepia537  So you have no clue either, no worries.
    2
  3.  @magnumrepia537  Simply after a date. If you don't know, no problems.
    2
  4. Holy crap this article brought out the nutjobs in the comments.
    2
  5. Factually wrong. Einstein had a belief mass distorted time an space. He then put that belief into a paper “special relativity” and some years later through experimentation by others that belief was proved true. It is now just common public knowledge and is known as “The theory of relativity”. It is only unscientific if despite repeated attempts, the evidence or lack of it shows something else or nothing. ie belief in a god/gods for which no evidence has ever been provided similar to the belief in leprechauns.
    1
  6. He has a PHd in astrophysics. Should I address you as your highness? What is your first command?
    1
  7.  @PJRayment  LMFAO, and here i thought all along you didn't have a sense of humour.
    1
  8.  @PJRayment  Nope, a few minor technical errors maybe, better than your fundamentally flawed philosophy.
    1
  9.  @PJRayment  We would just be going over the same old territory, just be satisfied you gave me a good belly laugh.
    1
  10.  @magnumrepia537  See Phil was able to answer with a relatively quick and simple answer. He is wrong. Mark and John mention no date and Matthew has 6 BCE and Luke 6 CE. See it wasn't a hard question, have you even the remotest clue as to the rubbish you espouse?
    1
  11.  @PJRayment  Yeah you have Matthew and Luke confused but that's OK, I'll accept 4 BCE for Matthew as it's so close to 6 BCE what's a couple of years. But Luke is quite specific about the census conducted at the time by the Romans as it was a big deal for the jews and we know from contemporaneous Roman records that the census ordered by Quirinius was in 6 CE. I don't need to reconcile these dates as they are not meant to be literal, but you have a problem. The supposed infallibility of your bible.
    1
  12.  @PJRayment  Nope you're wrong again. Luke 2:1,2 is very specific about the birth date during the census of Quirinius and we know absolutely from contemporaneous Roman records this was 6 CE. Either Luke or Matthew is mistaken. Most scholars agree Luke is. I have no problem with this, you though have infallibility issues you have to resolve.
    1
  13.  @PJRayment  No, evidence of only one census exists. Coins exsist that were issued by Quirinius and roman inscriptions exsist confirming Quirinius ordered only one census. The writer of Luke was just wrong and you have to make up all sorts of crap due to cognitive dissonance, but it's fun watching you twist and turn.
    1
  14.  @PJRayment  What a ludicrously stupid argument. No original of the new testament bible exsists. Earliest fragments date to 2nd century CE and are in Greek and and the first full copies again in Greek don't appear till 4th and 5th century CE and you laughably compare them to contemporary Roman accounts of thier own administration. Man do you have chutzpah.
    1