Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "Douglas Murray and Jonathan Pageau | EP 290" video.

  1.  @serpentines6356  How do you not notice your own dishonesty. Imagine someone, who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness monster describing their emotional response to a cryptozoology apologist, who didn't provide any evidence for the Loch Ness monster or even tried to. What could it possibly mean to "remodel your architecture" here? Either you think there's evidence for the Loch Ness monster or you don't. It seems that you do not, but you like to pretend that there is a Loch Ness monster regardless.
    3
  2. You want the stories to be true so you can justify taking sex slaves. Why do you need the permission of some Bronze age deity to kill gays or to beat children when that's already what you want to do?
    1
  3. The "big bang" is not a "miracle". That matter was concentrated at high density at some point in the past was a straightforward conclusion from astronomical observations and it was later verified in the microwave background radiation. Meanwhile the resurrection is a myth among many and the more we learn the less plausible it becomes.
    1
  4.  @calebsmith1899  >everything can't come from nothing. There has to be a first cause You don't even understand your own apologetics. "there is a first cause" and "everything came from nothing" are equivalent. What you badly parroted is the position that there isn't an infinite regress of causes. But it doesn't matter whether there is an infinite regress of causes or not, because in neither case does your god add anything to the story nor is either more "miraculous" than the other.
    1
  5.  @nickhancock4337  Your "thinking deeply" is just motivated reasoning. You should try thinking clearly instead. Giving your god new superpowers doesn't make it any more real.
    1
  6.  @Mikehuntt2323  >I fully respect others rights to think differently than I do In other words you lie to people. A "right to think differently" is the most absurd euphemism I can think of. You don't decide what you believe, you are persuaded by evidence. Leaving people ignorant of what you know is not some libertarian policy, but simply deception.
    1
  7.  @scottmcloughlin4371  Those "foolish paintings" were made by people, who actually follow the traditions you pretend to follow. God is a dude. He's an anthropomorphic, intelligent agent with desires and plans that are very similar to that of humans. He interacts with people, bargains, commands, persuades, etc. This person is the very bedrock of the faith. Not a passive phenomenon, not an abstract concept, a real, active person. You just refuse to take the religion you're pretending to defend any seriously.
    1
  8.  @ttfweb1  That's like shitting your pants all the time and thiniking "well it kind of stinks everywhere anyways".
    1
  9. If I'm getting married, I'm getting married whether God agrees with it or not.
    1
  10. >his forthright nature and laser focus on issues What do you mean by "do"? And "you"? And "believe"? And "in"? ...
    1
  11. She defends religion by denying what it is, pretty much like Peterson.
    1
  12. Nowhere in this rambling nonsense have you given any reason to believe that any god exists or any Christian dogma is true. You seem to be saying "I'm trying to bullshit myself".
    1
  13.  @romeisburning6739  Having a guy on the inside is a severe sin. Repent.
    1
  14. > it can’t be answered by us (or any living persons) in reality because we weren’t there when it happened You needed two people to come up with something so stupid? Do you apply the same reasoning to everything? You can't know anything about the Jurassic because you weren't there? You can't know anything about star formation, because you weren't there? You can't know anything about the Roman Empire, because you weren't there? Just apply your regular, every day reasoning and it's clear that you don't believe in the resurrection. >These four men knew Christ It's clear that you don't know the first thing about biblical scholarship. None of them knew Jesus. John had Mark, Luke and Matthew and other sources and wrote long after Jesus' death. Luke and Matthew had Mark and common and separate sources. Moreover even if we had several contemporaries claim that Jesus did rise from the dead, that wouldn't be any more reason to believe it than any of the current devotees of various gurus are reason to believe in the magical powers of their masters.
    1
  15. How about you actually read the bible? Or better yet listen to what actual bible scholars have to say about the stories?
    1
  16. According to contemporary Christian theology Christ created all of that suffering to begin with, so the motivations are more unclear than that.
    1
  17. To completely reject the existence of a god is not compatible with Christianity.
    1
  18. You're writing this like you're completely oblivious to the actual history of the religion. What makes Christianity and Islam special is that they explicitly call for faith, that faith is a virtue in itself. And within Christianity you have a schism of whether "works" are even relevant spiritually at all.
    1
  19.  @RossArlenTieken  It's honestly hard to believe that you actually lack the imagination to understand just how fantastically unconvincing all of that bullshit is from the outside. It's like you tacitly assume that everyone else must have the same motivated reasoning. As an exercise one can come up with similar justifications for any myth.
    1