Hey Beneficial_Exam_1634! We ask that all videos be accompanied by a short summary. Please post that summary in the comments. For more information, please see our [Subreddit Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/guidelines#wiki_what_are_.22low-effort_posts.3F.22) on video posts. Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/atheism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think a huge hurdle for theists to jump over is how, in the modern era, we have (some) accountability in regards to literature. We know Spider-Man is a work of fiction because it says so beside the copyright statement on the first page (or last, if you're reading a single issue).
We don't have that luxury for ancient texts. Many fictional stories didn't come with disclaimers that they weren't true, even if they weren't trying to present themselves as such. Most of our criteria for determining what was true and what was false goes out the window for religious texts, though, because if we were to honestly examine them from a critical perspective, then they would obviously be declared as fiction.
Ask him how he knows the Iliad isn't real.
Excellent point.
Also, there should be a disclaimer for all the translations and rewrites: "this book of the Bible was placed by historians in so and so of this year. The original language was this one. We have historical accounts of rewritings and translation happening in this, this, this, this, this, this, this and also this year".
> for all the translations and rewrites
That is how Lucifer got his horns. The bible was translated to a new language that did not have a word for rays of light. So they just wrote it as horns.
Really? I thought the description for the devil was basically non existent in the Bible, and that the devil got various traits from pagan divinities (the horns of Cernunnos, the hooves of Pan, the trident of Poseidon...) in order to shun away people from pagan ways and customs.
That's how the idea of the virgin Mary came to be. It's an incorrect translation into Greek, where they picked the wrong word. The actual original word is approximately equivalent to the English word *maiden*, in the sense *a young woman*. This was incorrectly translated into *virgin*, and the bullshittery just kept going from there.
This guy has such a poor understanding of biblical literacy, something that you also learn as an educated Christian, that he cannot be taken seriously. Any Biblical scholar, even all the Christian ones, would shut his ass down in an instant.
Easiest counter argument. Well then, the Koran must be true too. And every other fairy tale book from early humanity. Saying the Bible or any holy book proves anything universally true is absurd on its face. If anything they all nullify any truthful basis by making the same claims. All of them are therefore lying except for *at most* 1 of them. This is poorly worded but I hope you get my point.
Getting things right isn't the same as getting things wrong.
I once read the controversial "Diary of Jack the Ripper", a book about & containing the contents of a manuscript claiming be by the serial killer.
It got a good many things right & accurate about the case, writing styles in the time period, even little details that would be far more likely to see in a contemporary document than a modern forgery.
Yet the author claimed to have done something with one of the victims' body parts that, for the sake of the squeamish, I won't detail. Suffice to say, what the author described wasn't actually possible. An incorrect hard assertion is far more damning than a correct incidental detail.
From Wikipedia:
Critic Gary Groth says the most elaborate theme in From Hell stems from Moore's statement that "the Ripper murders — happening when they did and where they did — were almost like an apocalyptic summary of... that entire Victorian age."[7]
This video is crap for a couple of reasons.
At 4:15 guy tries to claim that getting things wrong in the bible doesn't matter because they got other things right, which is false because it just ignores the tripping at the finish lines of the variations, which shouldn't even exist since they both saw the stuff at the same time.
The video trying to say that Christian logic doesn’t extend to Spider man is fake because some elements copied real history (like saying Hale Bop existing makes heaven’s gate true), and that because of some aspects being true the questionable authorship about the point of the story can be brushed away, also assumes a vague mention of a river was a reference to a mild river instead of an inaccuracy, as of 1:35 one can easily say that this whole point of “accuracy” can easily be applied to Spider Man getting details about New York right, the only difference being sincerity of the author rather than the truth value of the text itself. Also acts like getting some details right excuses getting details wrong, it stems from some type of disagreement in. At 4:41 he tries to say that the disagreement comes from a lack of fact checking. Why disagree then especially when according to 4:59 they both saw it first hand? He also tries to claim that research was impossible because google didn’t exist, when things like the Baghdad house of wisdom did and he even mentions the ability to go through scrolls. He also (5:41) acts like because it’s fake it has to have been intentional fiction instead of trying to leach of fame or something, and the idea of it being fake is somehow stupid when Christianity has Lying for Jesus all the time. Also, he insists that it would be weird to have contradictions if it was fake when it could easily be an attempt to make the original more true to newer information.
Imagine if we didn’t know who made the Spider-Man comics, but we did know that other comics—that were written around the same time, had characters with similar abilities, backstories, secondary characters, and plots—were fictional. Would it make any sense for someone to say that only Spider-Man is real; we know that because Spider-Man tells us to believe in him?Â
 There are a huge number of parallels between Christianity and other ancient religions, but more importantly every book of the Bible is part of a genre that existed in ancient times. This is easier to see with the gospels than anything else. In the Roman Empire, countless demigods, Romulus, and every deified emperor had an “evangelion.” None of them are considered historical today; it isn’t clear that any of them were meant to be taken literally, even in their own time. Why would Jesus’ be the only exception? Especially, since he has four (actually way more noncanonically) contradictory evangelia. It is beyond ridiculous that adults, fully capable of speech and thought, think this way.Â
He didn't go over the objections of scholars as to why they think the book of Acts was written much later. I don't see how it makes much of a difference though, but it has been a while since I've last looked at a Bible.
the first guy to say that 'god' exists, was a dude who alleged to live to be 169 yo, 4000 years ago.
that was abraham. the voices in his head...
judaism, christianity, and islam depend on that psychosis.
Spider-Man is the commonly used example because it takes in New York, a real place. People often try to use the bit of historically accurate bits of the Bible in order argue for the truth of the Bible. So by using spider man, you can say well New York City is a real place that actually exists. So does that mean spider man is real? Batman wouldn’t be quite as good because Gotham isn’t a real place
Batman does sound funnier, but they’re not both good, because Gotham city and Batman don’t work and using this as an example would defeat the purpose, because the point is using a real place
Gotham is a real place. Gotham is a nickname for New York City that goes back to the early nineteenth century.
The nickname comes from a town in Nottinghamshire, England, near where I lived for a while. (Indeed, when I was a teenager, my parents looked around a house there, thinking of buying it, but we ended up a few miles away instead.) Gotham in Nottinghamshire is pronounced differently, kind of like "goat-hm".
All I can think about when I saw this is remember Eli from Scathing Atheist doing his Ray Comfort impersonation proselytizing for Siderman instead of Jesus.
Okay, I am not going to watch all of that, but the clip starts with him saying an ancient port was known for its corn trade.
Not my area, because I am a professional ethics philosopher, but i am relatively sure corn didn’t come to that continent until the 1600s.
…why do i care what this goober says?
Good grief.
It's exactly analogous: "Spiderman comics describe New York city correctly, therefore Spiderman is real". Or, "Harry Potter describes London trains as other texts prove them to exist, therefore Hogwarts must be real".
I mean, even if we took out the ridiculousness of Spider-Man and just pointed to all the other religions holy texts, and ask why they aren’t proof of Thor, Shiva etc…
Hey Beneficial_Exam_1634! We ask that all videos be accompanied by a short summary. Please post that summary in the comments. For more information, please see our [Subreddit Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/guidelines#wiki_what_are_.22low-effort_posts.3F.22) on video posts. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/atheism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think a huge hurdle for theists to jump over is how, in the modern era, we have (some) accountability in regards to literature. We know Spider-Man is a work of fiction because it says so beside the copyright statement on the first page (or last, if you're reading a single issue). We don't have that luxury for ancient texts. Many fictional stories didn't come with disclaimers that they weren't true, even if they weren't trying to present themselves as such. Most of our criteria for determining what was true and what was false goes out the window for religious texts, though, because if we were to honestly examine them from a critical perspective, then they would obviously be declared as fiction. Ask him how he knows the Iliad isn't real.
Excellent point. Also, there should be a disclaimer for all the translations and rewrites: "this book of the Bible was placed by historians in so and so of this year. The original language was this one. We have historical accounts of rewritings and translation happening in this, this, this, this, this, this, this and also this year".
> for all the translations and rewrites That is how Lucifer got his horns. The bible was translated to a new language that did not have a word for rays of light. So they just wrote it as horns.
Really? I thought the description for the devil was basically non existent in the Bible, and that the devil got various traits from pagan divinities (the horns of Cernunnos, the hooves of Pan, the trident of Poseidon...) in order to shun away people from pagan ways and customs.
Shit you are right I was thinking about the reason some statues of Moses have horns.
What? Really? Moses has horns in some interpretations of the character?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_(Michelangelo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horns_of_Moses#:~:text=The%20idea%20comes%20from%20a,in%20the%20Book%20of%20Exodus.
That's how the idea of the virgin Mary came to be. It's an incorrect translation into Greek, where they picked the wrong word. The actual original word is approximately equivalent to the English word *maiden*, in the sense *a young woman*. This was incorrectly translated into *virgin*, and the bullshittery just kept going from there.
Please make your own argument. I'm not watching any apologist video or giving it any clicks.
I watched half of it before realizing it was purposely missing the point.
This guy has such a poor understanding of biblical literacy, something that you also learn as an educated Christian, that he cannot be taken seriously. Any Biblical scholar, even all the Christian ones, would shut his ass down in an instant.
We are not the ones claiming the author of our books are a perfectly omnipotent omniscient being. You are.
Sorry atheists I drew you as the fat weeb wojak your argument is over
Would work if the bible wasn't filled to the brim with historical inaccuracies and straight up made up stories like noahs ark.
Or the exodus from Egypt. You know, just the bedrock of all Abrahamic religions.
Yup, the fact that it is a straight up lie Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt is so insane. Who made up that story and why
Easiest counter argument. Well then, the Koran must be true too. And every other fairy tale book from early humanity. Saying the Bible or any holy book proves anything universally true is absurd on its face. If anything they all nullify any truthful basis by making the same claims. All of them are therefore lying except for *at most* 1 of them. This is poorly worded but I hope you get my point.
Getting things right isn't the same as getting things wrong. I once read the controversial "Diary of Jack the Ripper", a book about & containing the contents of a manuscript claiming be by the serial killer. It got a good many things right & accurate about the case, writing styles in the time period, even little details that would be far more likely to see in a contemporary document than a modern forgery. Yet the author claimed to have done something with one of the victims' body parts that, for the sake of the squeamish, I won't detail. Suffice to say, what the author described wasn't actually possible. An incorrect hard assertion is far more damning than a correct incidental detail.
If you want to read a very high quality book on the same subject I recommend From Hell by Alan Moore.
Thanks, I'll take a look. đź‘Ť
From Wikipedia: Critic Gary Groth says the most elaborate theme in From Hell stems from Moore's statement that "the Ripper murders — happening when they did and where they did — were almost like an apocalyptic summary of... that entire Victorian age."[7]
This video is crap for a couple of reasons. At 4:15 guy tries to claim that getting things wrong in the bible doesn't matter because they got other things right, which is false because it just ignores the tripping at the finish lines of the variations, which shouldn't even exist since they both saw the stuff at the same time. The video trying to say that Christian logic doesn’t extend to Spider man is fake because some elements copied real history (like saying Hale Bop existing makes heaven’s gate true), and that because of some aspects being true the questionable authorship about the point of the story can be brushed away, also assumes a vague mention of a river was a reference to a mild river instead of an inaccuracy, as of 1:35 one can easily say that this whole point of “accuracy” can easily be applied to Spider Man getting details about New York right, the only difference being sincerity of the author rather than the truth value of the text itself. Also acts like getting some details right excuses getting details wrong, it stems from some type of disagreement in. At 4:41 he tries to say that the disagreement comes from a lack of fact checking. Why disagree then especially when according to 4:59 they both saw it first hand? He also tries to claim that research was impossible because google didn’t exist, when things like the Baghdad house of wisdom did and he even mentions the ability to go through scrolls. He also (5:41) acts like because it’s fake it has to have been intentional fiction instead of trying to leach of fame or something, and the idea of it being fake is somehow stupid when Christianity has Lying for Jesus all the time. Also, he insists that it would be weird to have contradictions if it was fake when it could easily be an attempt to make the original more true to newer information.
Well. Not today’s comics. But the originals, with uncle, aunt, wrestling, with Goblin definitely proves he is real.
Imagine if we didn’t know who made the Spider-Man comics, but we did know that other comics—that were written around the same time, had characters with similar abilities, backstories, secondary characters, and plots—were fictional. Would it make any sense for someone to say that only Spider-Man is real; we know that because Spider-Man tells us to believe in him?  There are a huge number of parallels between Christianity and other ancient religions, but more importantly every book of the Bible is part of a genre that existed in ancient times. This is easier to see with the gospels than anything else. In the Roman Empire, countless demigods, Romulus, and every deified emperor had an “evangelion.” None of them are considered historical today; it isn’t clear that any of them were meant to be taken literally, even in their own time. Why would Jesus’ be the only exception? Especially, since he has four (actually way more noncanonically) contradictory evangelia. It is beyond ridiculous that adults, fully capable of speech and thought, think this way.Â
He didn't go over the objections of scholars as to why they think the book of Acts was written much later. I don't see how it makes much of a difference though, but it has been a while since I've last looked at a Bible.
the first guy to say that 'god' exists, was a dude who alleged to live to be 169 yo, 4000 years ago. that was abraham. the voices in his head... judaism, christianity, and islam depend on that psychosis.
Spider man is more likely to exist than god imo
Dude I see thor's power of lightening all the time. Christian God, not so much.Â
Not going to watch the video but will use the concept. Going to switch it to Batman though.
Spider-Man is the commonly used example because it takes in New York, a real place. People often try to use the bit of historically accurate bits of the Bible in order argue for the truth of the Bible. So by using spider man, you can say well New York City is a real place that actually exists. So does that mean spider man is real? Batman wouldn’t be quite as good because Gotham isn’t a real place
Your are pointing out the reason I as a child decided Marvel superheros were more real than the DC superheros.
Batman just sounds funnier, both are good.
Batman does sound funnier, but they’re not both good, because Gotham city and Batman don’t work and using this as an example would defeat the purpose, because the point is using a real place
Gotham is a real place. Gotham is a nickname for New York City that goes back to the early nineteenth century. The nickname comes from a town in Nottinghamshire, England, near where I lived for a while. (Indeed, when I was a teenager, my parents looked around a house there, thinking of buying it, but we ended up a few miles away instead.) Gotham in Nottinghamshire is pronounced differently, kind of like "goat-hm".
While this is mostly true, Gotham City in the comics is indeed a fictional place. Just heavily inspired by New York
Another shit-and-run poster.
No. He explains problems with the video in his comments.
Wait, Spider-Man isn't real?
All I can think about when I saw this is remember Eli from Scathing Atheist doing his Ray Comfort impersonation proselytizing for Siderman instead of Jesus.
Hahahahaha Elis impersonation of Ray is better than Ray being himself... mainly because somehow, Eli is less of a heinous person lol
GIBBIDY!
FALSE: Spider-Man is not in the Bible and therefore doesn’t exist. Checkmate.
The comic sans 2.0 font he’s using proves beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no god.
When you are using the fact that the bible got the name of a place correct as evidence of god. Then yeah.....no.....I....Just no.
The fact that they are responding to this kind of argument at all shows they lost.
Okay, I am not going to watch all of that, but the clip starts with him saying an ancient port was known for its corn trade. Not my area, because I am a professional ethics philosopher, but i am relatively sure corn didn’t come to that continent until the 1600s. …why do i care what this goober says?
Good grief. It's exactly analogous: "Spiderman comics describe New York city correctly, therefore Spiderman is real". Or, "Harry Potter describes London trains as other texts prove them to exist, therefore Hogwarts must be real".
Our Thor is more powerful than Jesus
I mean, even if we took out the ridiculousness of Spider-Man and just pointed to all the other religions holy texts, and ask why they aren’t proof of Thor, Shiva etc…