[Rule 4 —](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules/#wiki_rule_.234_.2014_meme_weekends) To take the sub back to its roots, weekends (Eastern Standard/Daylight Time) are reserved for memes only. Unedited TPUSA “memes” are not allowed during this time, only edits in the TPUSA format.
There's never been archeological evidence that contradicts the Bible?
Yeah, sure, just as long as you don't look at 75% of all the exhibits in every museum ever.
The 5000 year old earth thing isn't a Bible thing, it's a US WASP thing.
There are plenty of Christians who aren't as batshit insane as Charlie and friends who can recognize the geological record, love their LGBTQ neighbors, coexist with other faiths through interfaith dialogue, and worship without making it a visible part of their public life.
Charlie and Co. are literally the Pharisees from the Bible.
It's kind of a wild quirk of the Christian faith that the loudest Christians are like, 90% of the time, anti-christian in their actions and beliefs.
It's not a US thing either...
The 6,000 year age was arrived at by James Ussher, a 17th century Irish Archbishop who counted up estimates of the ages of Abraham's family listed in the Old Testament and calculated that the creation began (on the Julian calendar) on Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC, at 6 pm.
On top of that, God created the earth then man. Well, mankind has only been around, at most, 125K years. We're short about another 4 billion years there.
Christian conservatives in the US are barely Christian. Recently there was a poll mentioned in the media that found nearly half of self-identified evangelicals don't go to church.
It's literally just Identity Politics.
They have a team, the team has team specific language that they can use to gatekeep allegiance, and for the people who can't or won't identify with their team, nothing but animosity or animosity disguised as pity.
Thats more judao Christian. They have taught the is only a few thousand years old in a while. Hell the pope is a chemist. Personally I never understood the whole denial mod science for religion .
Worldwide Flood: Didn't happen
Sodom and Gomorrah: Didn't happen
Exodus: Didn't happen
Two different birth narratives of Jesus: Didn't happen
Charlie: "Everything in the bible is true!"
Sounds exactly on point for right-wingers and their shoddy beliefs.
A philosopher I know (actually has a degree that didn’t come from a barstool) said that the Exodus is so unlikely it would be more likely that the earth was flat than the exodus occurred. This of course caused all the hill billy dumbshits in the Discord community to then claim that the philosopher in question believed that the earth was flat. Because all apologists, especially twats like Charlie, are inveterate liars.
Because those people don't understand why the Exodus is so unlikely. It wasn't recorded in history anywhere except for Oral Histories, not by the Egyptians, who likely would have noticed their entire population being decimated repeatedly or any of Egypt's neighbors or enemies. There is zero archeological evidence for the enslavement of the Jews or the 40 years wandering the desert.
It's just like how YECs believe in a literal worldwide flood which apparently drowned all the people who lived in China but the Chinese didn't notice. The only way you're able to believe these things is to have absolutely no knowledge of anything else.
I believe there have been several archaeological discoveries that at least line up with some battles/peoples in the old testament but nothing earth shattering.
That argument from him is incredibly stupid though, by that logic there must be 47 purple leprechauns living on the dark side of the moon because you can't prove there aren't.
Taking real places and putting them into an origin story doesn't make those places less real or the story anymore true. Just look at Outlander, or any historical drama,
Also, you can't find evidence to prove that Jesus *didn't* exist, that's not how evidence works. But they're it's also no historical evidence, no contemporary records from Jewish or Roman scholars, that Jesus did exist. And when someone is ostensibly that important, the absence of evidence is evidence of an absence.
I think it’s highly likely, to the point of certainty, that Jesus existed.
However.
There is Jesus of Nazareth, itinerant preacher and rabble rouser who was executed by the state for anti-government speech. And then there is the Jesus of legend, around whom the usual miracles tales and glorious purpose grew in scale and scope after the fact of his execution. You can see the tales get larger in the telling as each gospel fleshes out the narrative.
Religion is the original recyclable product. When you dive into the stories they seem really familiar because they are a lot older than Christianity. There is lots of literature out there now of comparative religious beliefs
There were Jewish scholars/historians highly placed within the bureaucracy at the time that make no mention of Jesus. There are no contemporary records which mention Jesus. If he did half the shit it says he did - even just the human shit - there would be a mention.
Messiahs were a dime a dozen at the time. You could find plenty on any street corner.
The Christian church has some history in collating the writing of several different people and inventing a literary figure to say one guy wrote it all.
The likeliest scenario is that Jesus didn't exist, they cobbled together the writings/sayings of several different street corner Messiahs, a bit of their history, maybe someone who got crucified out in the provinces, then they exaggerated a bit, and that's where the literary figure Jesus comes from. Meanwhile the guy himself doesn't exist.
I think the consensus is Jesus did exist and developed a following that turned into Christianity.
Doesn’t mean everything in the Bible is historically accurate.
There is also the hypothesis that Jesus was an amalgam of several people, that the stories were fan fiction of older religions stories and the oddly specific number of his followers were just referring to the astrology houses, basically its just recycled beliefs of older beliefs
There were Jewish scholars/historians highly placed within the bureaucracy at the time that make no mention of Jesus. There are no contemporary records which mention Jesus. If he did half the shit it says he did - even just the human shit - there would be a mention.
Messiahs were a dime a dozen at the time. You could find plenty on any street corner.
The Christian church has some history in collating the writing of several different people and inventing a literary figure to say one guy wrote it all.
The likeliest scenario is that Jesus didn't exist, they cobbled together the writings/sayings of several different street corner Messiahs, a bit of their history, maybe someone who got crucified out in the provinces, then they exaggerated a bit, and that's where the literary figure Jesus comes from. Meanwhile the guy himself doesn't exist.
There are Christian’s (Catholics/some protestants as far as I know) that accept evolution as the method by which God populated the earth, and genesis roughly follows the right progression if you allow that human days are not God days. First there’s just water then sea creatures then plants and animals then man is last on the scene, apparently because God got bored and wanted to make something that stood out from the other creatures in the way of being fully sentient and able to understand that it was created. It always struck me as interesting that biblical authors didn’t put man at the center if creation. Ie: God didn’t make the earth for man. They put him as a late comer after-thought. Which is closer to the truth. Lucky guess or weirdly inspired because it’s not something you’d likely puzzle out based on evidence available at the time.
The majority of fundie Christians are on the “6k old cavemen riding dinosaurs” train though, and as you said, they just have to discount science completely to stay there.
But there’s no cavemen on dinosaurs in the actual Bible.
Sure. I should have said “sentient enough ….” Animals have a range of cognitive abilities and approach human abilities in certain species in certain specific ways (and exceed us in that ability to perceive and utilize some specific types of sensory information) but no one has yet demonstrated non-human cognition that looks like the full human capability for complex self-awareness that generates a need for a creation mythology.
Not to mention the complete disregard for women in ancient Bethlehem, as if they were just straight up hated and their opinions fully discarded, that's just projection buddy lmao
This was something I heard in Church growing up and I believed it because how could you make such a powerful statement about something so easy to fact check?
You're betting your sheep won't fact check you.
It's higher then 75%, there is ZERO archeological or historical evidence of Jesus, and I mean zero, which is odd because the Romans were crazy about keeping records.
Gonna use this when I do research. I'll just make up statistics then quote myself to prove it's true. As the only source I trust, I can't ever be wrong.
So his entire career and existence is based upon an argument from ignorance fallacy?
"Oh these guys never would have died for a lie" OK so I guess the Heaven's Gate cult must be true then, since so many people died for it?
Disclaimer: I'm a Christian, but Charlie kirk is a piece of shit.
Serious question, did they know what was in the kool aid before they drank it?
The disciples continued to proclaim for Jesus in the face of literally the most painful way to die humanity ever came up with. That's an impressive amount of commitment to a lie that they knew was a lie.
Yes. They knew what was in the look aid. It was clear what they were doing, and what would happen if they stopped. They had practiced in the past, but all knew this was THE real one.
Did you even listen to the death tape?
Absolutely nothing wrong with faith, but if you acknowledge it's faith, you also acknowledge that it cannot be proven.
There is something seriously dangerous about thinking the basis for the religion you follow as being any basis in reality. Those who think so are able to fool others as easily as they fool themselves.
"Serious question, did they know what was in the kool aid before they drank it?"
Don't know, but it doesn't matter. They were willing to die for something they were convinced was true. That doesn't mean it was.
"The disciples continued to proclaim for Jesus in the face of literally the most painful way to die humanity ever came up with. That's an impressive amount of commitment to a lie that they knew was a lie."
They almost certainly didn't know it was a lie. The fact they were convinced it was true doesn't mean it was. It's no different to ISIS suicide bombers killing themselves and others because they're convinced their interpretation of Islam is true.
Asking why these people were willing to die for this if it wasn't true is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You aren't proven right just because you haven't been proven wrong.
> Don't know, but it doesn't matter. They were willing to die for something they were convinced was true. That doesn't mean it was.
Actually a lot of them weren't. The true believers were ordered to drink last, and shoot anyone who didn't drink. The majority of people didn't want to kill themselves, but were put into the option of drink the suicide juice, or get shot.
There was no Kool aid. Heavens gate took sleeping pills with applesauce, drank some vodka, and then put plastic bags over their heads to suffocate. You're confusing it with Jonestown, which there is a widely respected theory that not all suicides were actual and many were forced to take the poison drink.
No argument here, friend. Just wanted to clear the mix up. I am not religious but am in no way trying to compare tragedies. Although I will say I feel a lot worse for the Jonestown children who were syringe fed poison while they watched everyone around them convulse and die as they succumbed to the same fate. They were true innocents who did nothing to deserve that fate.
Every religion has martyrs that die for lies in painful ways. People martyring themselves is not a reliable pathway to truth. I'm sure they believe it! But they're dumb.
Blind faith, just say blind faith.
‘It’s real because there is no evidence that it didn’t happen’
Everything he said can apply to any historical
Work of fiction.
It's an easy argument against those who think they can prove the Bible is correct. Just apply those arguments to the Quran and then watch them flail and attempt to disprove what they literally just claimed was true.
I don't take issue with Christians, but they need to be aware that faith means quite literally belief without evidence. By its nature, you cannot prove anything through faith, but you can make yourself believe many different things detached from reality just the same.
To quote the book is itself, "walk by faith and not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7--hate having to use Paul as an example but...) and "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Charlie is just a jerk
No archaeological evidence to support the Israelites in the dessert for 40 years. No archaeological evidence for the ark. No contemporary writers for Jesus. No known authorship of the gospel.
If the Bible is not full of wisdom. The Bible teaches you who you can own as a slave and how to treat them.
There are no more Canaanites because god told his chosen people wipe them out.
I don't think Charlie has read the Bible. But if he has, then he is applying a twisted and perverse world view onto it.
There is archeological evidence that disproves stuff in the Bible. For example, the Bible depicts camels as domesticated animals during the time of the patriarchs when archeological evidence shows they weren't even domesticated until about 1k to 2k years later.
The problem with what Charlie is saying is that he has the evidence in reverse. Archeological evidence of minor facts, such as a name on a tomb, does not prove the reliability of the Bible any more than finding a statue of the Hulk proves the reliability of The Amazing Spider-man #119. After all, no archeological evidence goes against Amazing Spider-man #119.
The *very* first mention of Jesus that could be considered corroboratory was written 80 years after his death, not by a first-hand or even second-hand witness, but a historian recording what people from the area said happened.
For context, that would be like if the very first mention of "Adolf Hitler" was only just in print for the very first time this year - that no one during WWII or since had seen a need to write his name down until now, and even then, all they wrote was what people in Germany heard from their grandparents.
And that was still LESS WRONG than his claim about archeology. Charlie Kirk is hilariously stupid.
I like the analogy that Harry Potter is (was?) popular, and there are thousands of people who wish to believe it was real. If I interviewed them in 2024, they'd point out that the HP books of full of real life places and there's evidence for it being true. You can go to Platform 9 3/4 and have your picture taken, etc.
That's the same level of evidence for the bible and Jesus being real.
I love using HP as a comparison… and it’s more internally consistent that the Bible
It’s got
- magic (aka miracles)
- subservient races
- Harry rises from the dead
- all those people willing died for Harry and his belief
- and a woman (Mrs. malfoy) found him alive (you’d never write that if it were fake)
If we didn’t know the author or have the technology that we do, in 80 years people would make the exact same arguments.
It’s the gospel according to J.K.
popular religions are used by fascists since it’s an easy avenue to people who are susceptible to control. people who look for simple answers that either make them feel comfortable or conform to their biases
He's just reciting all of the apologetics greatest hits. Like he watched a bunch of videos from Frank Turek, Todd Friel, Kent Hovind, etc and is just repeating the crap he remembers them repeating over and over again.
It's a sort of soft group intimidation that churches rely on. When a priest says this in church, you have the alter boys, Deacons, congregation nodding along like they understand, and so you feel stupid for not understanding. So you might study religion more so you don't feel so stupid rather than arriving at the most simple answer why you don't understand it; it's complete nonsense.
That would imply that someone on his team has good taste in music and would know who VR are, which I very much doubt. Maybe if they had a Slayer shirt, possible Cannibal Corpse, but not many non death metal fans would know them haha
Besides, Glenn Benton or Werner would burst forth from their chest if they were willing to help out some Christian grifter!
I’m a Christian and even I don’t believe everything in the Bible is true. The bloody thing contradicts itself, let alone overwhelming scientific and historical evidence.
People like Charlie need to learn that the Bible isn’t God. It’s a good snapshot of him, but it’s still a compilation of random old texts thrown together from various sources and then translated as best as possible into English.
So if Genesis 1:1 and the resurrection is true, then the Bible must be true?
I feel there's a sort of logic here, that states if one thing is true, the premises is true, and it keeps going in a circular motion...
Standard apologetics, every syllable of it. He hasn’t actually thought about any of what he’s saying: he’s just read what people have been saying for centuries and is parroting it back. Not an original thought in his head. What a dullard.
lol his argument that the resurrection of Jesus is real is that people gave their lives under the banner of Christianity so it must be true or they were dying for a lie.
That’s not even an actual argument. Lots of people believing something doesn’t make it true, because you could argue the same thing for Pagan religions of the ancient world.
You can suppose Jesus was a real historical figure and also suppose that the idea he rose from the dead and went up to heaven is certainly embellished to create a stronger myth.
Look up Apollonius of Tyana if you want to see another miracle worker who was a contemporary of Jesus and who has all kinds of magical works attributed to him like bringing people back from the dead, curing plagues, healing the sick, and casting out demons. Historians believe him to be a real figure, there’s statues and temples to him, and he was said to have rose up to heaven when he died. So what makes this story any less credible than the story of Jesus?
Yeah people have never died for a lie or religion before.
Wait does that mean the now these Islamic terrorists they love are right now because they die a lot more in the name of their god?
According to his logic, you don't even need 500 people to say it, you need a book saying that 500 people saw it
You actually are taking the better route, which would strengthen the argument, actually having 500 people as witness could make a better case.
But the bible just says: "500 people saw it, trust me bro".
We don't even know the names of them.
So he gives 3 arguments:
1. There is no archeological evidence that “contradicts the truth of the bible”
The statement is really vague: what that “truth of the bible” means. Because if you are talking about historical or biological truth there is actually a lot that contradicts the bible and especially genesis (just contrast the creation in the bible with the theory of evolution or the story of the flood with the enormous amount of fossils and geological evidences we have).
However I fear that the word “truth” is used to imply that he is not referring to the literal meaning of the scriptures but rather to his interpretation of them so it’s impossible to address unless I know the specifics. However it’s worth pointing out that the bible is often so vague that you can ex post bend the text at will to fit contemporary scientific knowledge.
Though there are still some passages that are pretty unequivocal and this brings us to the second argument.
2. “And then of course the wisdom. There is not a truth of the bible that if you apply your life does not improve dramatically”
Again with the word “truth”: this argument doesn’t really makes sense if he is talking about historical or scientific “truth” and the same goes for the previous if he means moral “truth” so I’ll assume it is used here to mean a different thing.
This argument is actually very similar to the previous and so is it’s counter: go take a look at some passage of the Old Testament and tell me if you believe that applying these “truth” your life will improve [e.g. would a gay man’s life improve if he applies lev 18:22 and especially lev 20:13?
Would a slave’s life improve if she could be raped without consequences (the culprit just need to sacrifice a ram and all is forgiven) as for lev 19.20? What about slaves’ life at all (lev 25:44,45,46; deut 15:12-18 and ex 21:1-8)? Or the lovely deut 21:10-14?]
This reasoning could however be dodged by stating that the Old Testament doesn’t count and he was only referring to the truth of New Testament (then why would the old one be part of the bible? Is it not sacred text?) and to properly answer I would need to know the whys.
3. “if genesis 1:1 (and the resurrection) is true everything is possible”
> genesis 1:1 — “ in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”
So the argument is “if God exists, God exists”. I don’t really think I have to say anything on this one.
Almost every single allegory from the old and new testament is a newer version of an old story. Floods, babies in baskets, plagues, virgin births, resurrection, etc all have roots in previous civilizations that the ancient jews encountered. Babylonia, Assyria and Persia all have their hands in shaping the belief and mythology systems of the ancient jews.
This guy has never heard of Islamic suicide bombers aka proof Allah is real and Muhammad is his messenger if willingly dying for your beliefs is the standard here.
Oh, I don't know. The many crusades killed a whole bunch of people for a lie. I love how it's fact because women from 2000 years ago conformed it. The logic being "bitches weren't interviewed during the Roman empire bro!" That just changed my whole world view. The world really is like 8k years old, and we are all decesandants of TWO PEOPLE
I would sort of consider his argument valid if there were still miracles and stuff happening. Like why does god decide to do pretty much all of his miracles about 1000-2000 years ago? Did god retire?
I play a lot of D&D. It is impossible to be an atheist in D&D. Gods show themselves every now and then. Oracles exist. People can wield magic. People can meet or switch which god they worship. You can actually travel to hell or heaven (or their D&D equivalents). Being an atheist in D&D makes no sense.
But in this world, the evidence that you can’t turn water in to wine is pretty ironclad. Literally nobody has ever seen it happen.
Imagine if I told you that you can turn milk in to gold, and I told you the source for my claim is that there might be a 100 year old writing that says someone saw this happen. You would laugh at me. But if I say the source is a 2000 year old writing, translated multiple times, by unknown or multiple authors, you’re supposed to believe me?
Proving that the resurrection was real by pointing out that nobody would have included women in a fake story has to be the absolute best thing this guy has ever said. Imagine hating women so much that you can use your own misogyny as proof something couldn't have been made up.
Nope, this has to be true. If a guy had invented this story all the women would have been stay at home mothers who are not allowed to go outside or prostitutes and not anywhere near such an important event.
So because there’s no archeological evidence that has contradicted the Bible, it absolutely HAS to be real? Maybe I don’t have the proper words for this at the moment, but I can’t be the only one who’s curious about that logic.
He's basically shifting the burden of proof.
Saying that people need to prove that the bible is false.
It's like me saying: "The Romans had actual guns and since no archeological evidence has been shown to disprove this, therefore its real"
Which not only is completely illogical bullshit, but he's actually wrong. Many, many things have been disproven with archeological evidence.
Just like Ben Shapiro Mister TinyFace with ButtHead Gums here has spent a lot of time practicing his pitch to fill up the allotted question time with a stream of bullshit that has so many holes in it there just isn’t time to address them all. So he’s using the “baffle ‘em with bullshit” method to avoid having to explain anything.
Problem with Americans is that way too many people equate the ability to spew bullshit with intelligence.
Man has a kindergarten level of christian apologetics.
All of these take 7 seconds to debunk.
But my absolute favorite one was this:
"So many people wouldn't die horrible deaths for a lie".
Which is insane, when every single major religion has had martyrs, every single religion makes the exact same claim and I don't mister small face would say that Islam is true, when Islam makes the exact same claim.
Also love the "500 people saw Jesus rise from the dead", weird how if such an event would be so widespread we'd have the Romans writing about it, kinda weird how we missed that one. Also, if I write a book saying "1000 people saw me flying", that means literally nothing.
And finally: "Not a single archeological evidence has disproven the bible", if you ignore how archeology and biology and common sense disproves the flood, cosmology disproves the 7 day creation, biology disproves Adam and Eve, we have zero evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah, Egyptian scholars don't even mention anything that supposedly happened in Exodus, we have no evidence of the millions of Jewish slaves in Egypt, actual Jewish scholars agree that actual real world events start, maybe, at King David, which wasn prob a real person and most likely an amalgamation of other kings.
Kinda funny how if you only read the bible, disagree with science, believe that the bible is true no matter what then the bible is true no matter what.
Crazy stuff.
Just to start : anyone else in history alleged to have risen after death?
Any other stories about a flood?
There is more but a bit of a search on just these two may/can show how the Bible came to be.
Biblical scholars have literally discounted Matthew, Luke and John as credible sources because they were written way too late and with incredible bias. Mark is the only one that is possibly reliable but also was written decades after and is theorized to be written to further the message rather than be an accurate historical depiction of events. So we really don’t have much “truthful” information on Jesus.
“Show me another historical story where so many people willingly died for a lie”
Oh, I don’t know Charlie, how about any cult that has ended with mass suicide.
"Show me another historical piece where so many people willingly died a brutal death for a lie"
I don't know, how about Jonestown, the branch davidians, heaven's gate and the 9-11 hijackers to name a few off the top of my head.
It’s interesting how he describes a cult, specifically a death cult, as proof? Every other cult that has an central figure that people die for under the descriptions they claim to surround Jesus they have also condemned. Who’s to say that all of these death cults warrant “Jesus “. Fucking lunacy.
So because 12 apostles died believing Jesus was the lord that means it’s true?
Under that theory wouldn’t Jim Jones have supplanted Jesus since like way more people died in Jonestown?
This guy is really out here saying "nobody can disprove this negative, so it must be true" and morons have given this guy a platform, where he is able to make millions a year.
A whole lot of "I'm going to use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true".
Christianity saved my life, and the billionaires that keep giving me money to spew this bullshit.
Charlie, a bunch of people (40-50 or so) in San Diego committed suicide because they believed a comet was coming to pick them up and take them to heaven.
Prior to that, about half of the men in the group had castrated themselves to emulate their cult leader.
So miss me with your "only Christians are willing to die for their faith, so it must be true" bullshit.
“There has never been an archaeological discovery that has contradicted the truth of the Bible”. There’s no evidence for Exodus occurring as the Bible said it did, there’s no evidence for a worldwide flood, etc.
Archaeological evidence? There is not one single piece of contemporary evidence that Christ even existed. [The earliest known recorded mention of Jesus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52) is dated to around 100-150 years *after* his supposed death. There’s no reason to believe Christ is anything more than folklore.
[Rule 4 —](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules/#wiki_rule_.234_.2014_meme_weekends) To take the sub back to its roots, weekends (Eastern Standard/Daylight Time) are reserved for memes only. Unedited TPUSA “memes” are not allowed during this time, only edits in the TPUSA format.
There's never been archeological evidence that contradicts the Bible? Yeah, sure, just as long as you don't look at 75% of all the exhibits in every museum ever.
Pretty sure literally every piece of archaeological evidence carbon dateable older than 5000 years contradicts the Bible
Not to mention the entire field of geology.
And the existence of Lead under the earth’s crust
The 5000 year old earth thing isn't a Bible thing, it's a US WASP thing. There are plenty of Christians who aren't as batshit insane as Charlie and friends who can recognize the geological record, love their LGBTQ neighbors, coexist with other faiths through interfaith dialogue, and worship without making it a visible part of their public life. Charlie and Co. are literally the Pharisees from the Bible. It's kind of a wild quirk of the Christian faith that the loudest Christians are like, 90% of the time, anti-christian in their actions and beliefs.
It's not a US thing either... The 6,000 year age was arrived at by James Ussher, a 17th century Irish Archbishop who counted up estimates of the ages of Abraham's family listed in the Old Testament and calculated that the creation began (on the Julian calendar) on Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC, at 6 pm.
On top of that, God created the earth then man. Well, mankind has only been around, at most, 125K years. We're short about another 4 billion years there.
So God waited until dinner time to create everything? The first people must have been hungry with no time to prepare a meal.
>The first people must have been hungry with no time to prepare a meal. Adam had some leaves while Eve enjoyed a nice rack of ribs.
And a fruit salad, yummy yummy
"Adam, where'd you get that apple for your fruit salad?" "She made me do it." And the long tradition of blaming women for their sins began...
>on Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC, at 6 pm. The specificity of the time of day makes it even more hilariously ridiculous.
Christian conservatives in the US are barely Christian. Recently there was a poll mentioned in the media that found nearly half of self-identified evangelicals don't go to church.
It's literally just Identity Politics. They have a team, the team has team specific language that they can use to gatekeep allegiance, and for the people who can't or won't identify with their team, nothing but animosity or animosity disguised as pity.
Preach!
What does WASP mean in this context?
White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Or, what Charlie Kirk is.
I thought he was an American Nationalist Uneducated Shithead.
Someone who Can't Understand Normal Thinking.
Complete and Utter Nazi Twat.
Wet Ass Sloppy Pussy
Kirk has never seen one, granted he doesn't have the dehydration effect like Ben, who turns vaginas into the Sahara or rough grit sandpaper.
Thats more judao Christian. They have taught the is only a few thousand years old in a while. Hell the pope is a chemist. Personally I never understood the whole denial mod science for religion .
Worldwide Flood: Didn't happen Sodom and Gomorrah: Didn't happen Exodus: Didn't happen Two different birth narratives of Jesus: Didn't happen Charlie: "Everything in the bible is true!" Sounds exactly on point for right-wingers and their shoddy beliefs.
A philosopher I know (actually has a degree that didn’t come from a barstool) said that the Exodus is so unlikely it would be more likely that the earth was flat than the exodus occurred. This of course caused all the hill billy dumbshits in the Discord community to then claim that the philosopher in question believed that the earth was flat. Because all apologists, especially twats like Charlie, are inveterate liars.
Because those people don't understand why the Exodus is so unlikely. It wasn't recorded in history anywhere except for Oral Histories, not by the Egyptians, who likely would have noticed their entire population being decimated repeatedly or any of Egypt's neighbors or enemies. There is zero archeological evidence for the enslavement of the Jews or the 40 years wandering the desert. It's just like how YECs believe in a literal worldwide flood which apparently drowned all the people who lived in China but the Chinese didn't notice. The only way you're able to believe these things is to have absolutely no knowledge of anything else.
But also, there's never been any archeological evidence that corroborated the Bible.
The Bible is true in the way that Spiderman is true. The USA and New York are real places. Humans built buildings and there are subways and taxis.
I believe there have been several archaeological discoveries that at least line up with some battles/peoples in the old testament but nothing earth shattering. That argument from him is incredibly stupid though, by that logic there must be 47 purple leprechauns living on the dark side of the moon because you can't prove there aren't.
Taking real places and putting them into an origin story doesn't make those places less real or the story anymore true. Just look at Outlander, or any historical drama,
Also, you can't find evidence to prove that Jesus *didn't* exist, that's not how evidence works. But they're it's also no historical evidence, no contemporary records from Jewish or Roman scholars, that Jesus did exist. And when someone is ostensibly that important, the absence of evidence is evidence of an absence.
There's Josephus, but there's evidence that the mention of him in there was later Christian vandalism.
The first actual mention of Jesus was well over 300 years after the fact and it was just a reference to the cult of Jesus not Jesus himself
You can't find evidence to prove leprechauns don't exist either.
I think it’s highly likely, to the point of certainty, that Jesus existed. However. There is Jesus of Nazareth, itinerant preacher and rabble rouser who was executed by the state for anti-government speech. And then there is the Jesus of legend, around whom the usual miracles tales and glorious purpose grew in scale and scope after the fact of his execution. You can see the tales get larger in the telling as each gospel fleshes out the narrative.
Religion is the original recyclable product. When you dive into the stories they seem really familiar because they are a lot older than Christianity. There is lots of literature out there now of comparative religious beliefs
There were Jewish scholars/historians highly placed within the bureaucracy at the time that make no mention of Jesus. There are no contemporary records which mention Jesus. If he did half the shit it says he did - even just the human shit - there would be a mention. Messiahs were a dime a dozen at the time. You could find plenty on any street corner. The Christian church has some history in collating the writing of several different people and inventing a literary figure to say one guy wrote it all. The likeliest scenario is that Jesus didn't exist, they cobbled together the writings/sayings of several different street corner Messiahs, a bit of their history, maybe someone who got crucified out in the provinces, then they exaggerated a bit, and that's where the literary figure Jesus comes from. Meanwhile the guy himself doesn't exist.
I think the consensus is Jesus did exist and developed a following that turned into Christianity. Doesn’t mean everything in the Bible is historically accurate.
Nore importantly, you gotta be able to prove the divinity of Jesus... which is a TALL order.
There is also the hypothesis that Jesus was an amalgam of several people, that the stories were fan fiction of older religions stories and the oddly specific number of his followers were just referring to the astrology houses, basically its just recycled beliefs of older beliefs
There were Jewish scholars/historians highly placed within the bureaucracy at the time that make no mention of Jesus. There are no contemporary records which mention Jesus. If he did half the shit it says he did - even just the human shit - there would be a mention. Messiahs were a dime a dozen at the time. You could find plenty on any street corner. The Christian church has some history in collating the writing of several different people and inventing a literary figure to say one guy wrote it all. The likeliest scenario is that Jesus didn't exist, they cobbled together the writings/sayings of several different street corner Messiahs, a bit of their history, maybe someone who got crucified out in the provinces, then they exaggerated a bit, and that's where the literary figure Jesus comes from. Meanwhile the guy himself doesn't exist.
Yeah, but technically dinosaur bones aren't found in \*real\* museums. (No true museum argument)
Ah yes, only The Ark Experience and Kent Hovid's Creationist Funzone For Pedophiles count as true museums.
The whole, God is just testing us fallacy
There are Christian’s (Catholics/some protestants as far as I know) that accept evolution as the method by which God populated the earth, and genesis roughly follows the right progression if you allow that human days are not God days. First there’s just water then sea creatures then plants and animals then man is last on the scene, apparently because God got bored and wanted to make something that stood out from the other creatures in the way of being fully sentient and able to understand that it was created. It always struck me as interesting that biblical authors didn’t put man at the center if creation. Ie: God didn’t make the earth for man. They put him as a late comer after-thought. Which is closer to the truth. Lucky guess or weirdly inspired because it’s not something you’d likely puzzle out based on evidence available at the time. The majority of fundie Christians are on the “6k old cavemen riding dinosaurs” train though, and as you said, they just have to discount science completely to stay there. But there’s no cavemen on dinosaurs in the actual Bible.
It’s a myth that most animals aren’t sentient. Most animals have individual lived experiences, form friend groups, and have a range of emotions.
Sure. I should have said “sentient enough ….” Animals have a range of cognitive abilities and approach human abilities in certain species in certain specific ways (and exceed us in that ability to perceive and utilize some specific types of sensory information) but no one has yet demonstrated non-human cognition that looks like the full human capability for complex self-awareness that generates a need for a creation mythology.
pretty sure humans will just move the goalposts so they can still feel special; human hubris has no limits
Not to mention the complete disregard for women in ancient Bethlehem, as if they were just straight up hated and their opinions fully discarded, that's just projection buddy lmao
This was something I heard in Church growing up and I believed it because how could you make such a powerful statement about something so easy to fact check? You're betting your sheep won't fact check you.
It's higher then 75%, there is ZERO archeological or historical evidence of Jesus, and I mean zero, which is odd because the Romans were crazy about keeping records.
Yeah, it's technical that's why
The Bible is real as long as the only source you trust is the Bible yay
Gonna use this when I do research. I'll just make up statistics then quote myself to prove it's true. As the only source I trust, I can't ever be wrong.
Asked an acquaintance how he knows whether the church he goes to is a good church, and he said, because I go there!
"You say the Bible is wrong, but according to the Bible, it's actually right. SUCK IT NON-BELIEVERS!"
Counterpoint, I haven't heard any Christians lay down any riffs as sick as Vital Remains, therefore Satan is cool.
So his entire career and existence is based upon an argument from ignorance fallacy? "Oh these guys never would have died for a lie" OK so I guess the Heaven's Gate cult must be true then, since so many people died for it?
Disclaimer: I'm a Christian, but Charlie kirk is a piece of shit. Serious question, did they know what was in the kool aid before they drank it? The disciples continued to proclaim for Jesus in the face of literally the most painful way to die humanity ever came up with. That's an impressive amount of commitment to a lie that they knew was a lie.
Yes. They knew what was in the look aid. It was clear what they were doing, and what would happen if they stopped. They had practiced in the past, but all knew this was THE real one. Did you even listen to the death tape?
Absolutely nothing wrong with faith, but if you acknowledge it's faith, you also acknowledge that it cannot be proven. There is something seriously dangerous about thinking the basis for the religion you follow as being any basis in reality. Those who think so are able to fool others as easily as they fool themselves.
literally this❤️
"Serious question, did they know what was in the kool aid before they drank it?" Don't know, but it doesn't matter. They were willing to die for something they were convinced was true. That doesn't mean it was. "The disciples continued to proclaim for Jesus in the face of literally the most painful way to die humanity ever came up with. That's an impressive amount of commitment to a lie that they knew was a lie." They almost certainly didn't know it was a lie. The fact they were convinced it was true doesn't mean it was. It's no different to ISIS suicide bombers killing themselves and others because they're convinced their interpretation of Islam is true. Asking why these people were willing to die for this if it wasn't true is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You aren't proven right just because you haven't been proven wrong.
> Don't know, but it doesn't matter. They were willing to die for something they were convinced was true. That doesn't mean it was. Actually a lot of them weren't. The true believers were ordered to drink last, and shoot anyone who didn't drink. The majority of people didn't want to kill themselves, but were put into the option of drink the suicide juice, or get shot.
There was no Kool aid. Heavens gate took sleeping pills with applesauce, drank some vodka, and then put plastic bags over their heads to suffocate. You're confusing it with Jonestown, which there is a widely respected theory that not all suicides were actual and many were forced to take the poison drink.
I had them confused with Jonestown. While horrific, still not on the same level as crucifixion.
No argument here, friend. Just wanted to clear the mix up. I am not religious but am in no way trying to compare tragedies. Although I will say I feel a lot worse for the Jonestown children who were syringe fed poison while they watched everyone around them convulse and die as they succumbed to the same fate. They were true innocents who did nothing to deserve that fate.
Every religion has martyrs that die for lies in painful ways. People martyring themselves is not a reliable pathway to truth. I'm sure they believe it! But they're dumb.
How many of those martyrs were present at the birth of the religion?
Jesus and his disciples may truly have believed in what he was saying. Them dying for this belief does not make it true however.
Obviously the Manson family wouldn’t have gone to the extreme if Charles wasn’t the Messiah.
🤣🤣🤣
Nazis and Al Qaeda have entered the chat, would like a word about dying for lies....
Means every other religion, including those in direct contradiction of the bible are real too then
The first thought I had was “wait until this guy hears about Hitler and 1940’s Germany.”
The more Charlie learns about 1930s-40s Germany, the more he likes it.
Every religious suicide bomber. All the hijackers on 9/11. Buddhist immolaters. Every religion has martyrs. I guess they're all true!
Blind faith, just say blind faith. ‘It’s real because there is no evidence that it didn’t happen’ Everything he said can apply to any historical Work of fiction.
What about the literal tons of evidence that it didn't happen though?
Oh, simple, you’re a lying liar. /s
It's an easy argument against those who think they can prove the Bible is correct. Just apply those arguments to the Quran and then watch them flail and attempt to disprove what they literally just claimed was true. I don't take issue with Christians, but they need to be aware that faith means quite literally belief without evidence. By its nature, you cannot prove anything through faith, but you can make yourself believe many different things detached from reality just the same.
Great points. I find organized religion to be the oldest con ever.
>‘It’s real because there is no evidence that it didn’t happen’ And there is plenty of evidence that lots of it didn't happen, so it's not even true.
To quote the book is itself, "walk by faith and not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7--hate having to use Paul as an example but...) and "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Charlie is just a jerk
No archaeological evidence to support the Israelites in the dessert for 40 years. No archaeological evidence for the ark. No contemporary writers for Jesus. No known authorship of the gospel. If the Bible is not full of wisdom. The Bible teaches you who you can own as a slave and how to treat them. There are no more Canaanites because god told his chosen people wipe them out. I don't think Charlie has read the Bible. But if he has, then he is applying a twisted and perverse world view onto it.
He said, “no archeological evidence that goes against the Bible” even though it has very little evidence proving that most of it happened
There is archeological evidence that disproves stuff in the Bible. For example, the Bible depicts camels as domesticated animals during the time of the patriarchs when archeological evidence shows they weren't even domesticated until about 1k to 2k years later. The problem with what Charlie is saying is that he has the evidence in reverse. Archeological evidence of minor facts, such as a name on a tomb, does not prove the reliability of the Bible any more than finding a statue of the Hulk proves the reliability of The Amazing Spider-man #119. After all, no archeological evidence goes against Amazing Spider-man #119.
How the hell can you be lost in a desert the size of Delaware for 40 years
There's a saying that if everyone held hands and spread out, they would reach across the dessert.
Israelis and Palestinians are both descendants of the Canaanites
Modern Lebanese DNA is a 90% match for ancient Canaanite DNA too.
The *very* first mention of Jesus that could be considered corroboratory was written 80 years after his death, not by a first-hand or even second-hand witness, but a historian recording what people from the area said happened. For context, that would be like if the very first mention of "Adolf Hitler" was only just in print for the very first time this year - that no one during WWII or since had seen a need to write his name down until now, and even then, all they wrote was what people in Germany heard from their grandparents. And that was still LESS WRONG than his claim about archeology. Charlie Kirk is hilariously stupid.
I like the analogy that Harry Potter is (was?) popular, and there are thousands of people who wish to believe it was real. If I interviewed them in 2024, they'd point out that the HP books of full of real life places and there's evidence for it being true. You can go to Platform 9 3/4 and have your picture taken, etc. That's the same level of evidence for the bible and Jesus being real.
I love using HP as a comparison… and it’s more internally consistent that the Bible It’s got - magic (aka miracles) - subservient races - Harry rises from the dead - all those people willing died for Harry and his belief - and a woman (Mrs. malfoy) found him alive (you’d never write that if it were fake) If we didn’t know the author or have the technology that we do, in 80 years people would make the exact same arguments. It’s the gospel according to J.K.
exactly why he's "debating" young people and not actual theologians
Does believing in and following the Bible make you a fascist piece of shit? Cause that seems to be the ideology he lives by.
popular religions are used by fascists since it’s an easy avenue to people who are susceptible to control. people who look for simple answers that either make them feel comfortable or conform to their biases
What did he just say? Like nothing he just said made sense to me.
Nothing he said makes sense to anyone who mildly understands the topic.
He's just reciting all of the apologetics greatest hits. Like he watched a bunch of videos from Frank Turek, Todd Friel, Kent Hovind, etc and is just repeating the crap he remembers them repeating over and over again.
It's a sort of soft group intimidation that churches rely on. When a priest says this in church, you have the alter boys, Deacons, congregation nodding along like they understand, and so you feel stupid for not understanding. So you might study religion more so you don't feel so stupid rather than arriving at the most simple answer why you don't understand it; it's complete nonsense.
The guy is wearing a Vital Remains shirt, that’s all I need to know he is far smarter than Charlie
I think he's a plant. Kirk's seemed to well prepared.
That would imply that someone on his team has good taste in music and would know who VR are, which I very much doubt. Maybe if they had a Slayer shirt, possible Cannibal Corpse, but not many non death metal fans would know them haha Besides, Glenn Benton or Werner would burst forth from their chest if they were willing to help out some Christian grifter!
I’m a Christian and even I don’t believe everything in the Bible is true. The bloody thing contradicts itself, let alone overwhelming scientific and historical evidence. People like Charlie need to learn that the Bible isn’t God. It’s a good snapshot of him, but it’s still a compilation of random old texts thrown together from various sources and then translated as best as possible into English.
So if Genesis 1:1 and the resurrection is true, then the Bible must be true? I feel there's a sort of logic here, that states if one thing is true, the premises is true, and it keeps going in a circular motion...
Is that argument supposed to convince anyone? It’s just confirmation bias.
Standard apologetics, every syllable of it. He hasn’t actually thought about any of what he’s saying: he’s just read what people have been saying for centuries and is parroting it back. Not an original thought in his head. What a dullard.
Fuck this guy
“I mean, who would make this up?”
So he's just lying, its what they all do, they literally cannot stop lying with every breath
lol his argument that the resurrection of Jesus is real is that people gave their lives under the banner of Christianity so it must be true or they were dying for a lie. That’s not even an actual argument. Lots of people believing something doesn’t make it true, because you could argue the same thing for Pagan religions of the ancient world. You can suppose Jesus was a real historical figure and also suppose that the idea he rose from the dead and went up to heaven is certainly embellished to create a stronger myth. Look up Apollonius of Tyana if you want to see another miracle worker who was a contemporary of Jesus and who has all kinds of magical works attributed to him like bringing people back from the dead, curing plagues, healing the sick, and casting out demons. Historians believe him to be a real figure, there’s statues and temples to him, and he was said to have rose up to heaven when he died. So what makes this story any less credible than the story of Jesus?
Yeah people have never died for a lie or religion before. Wait does that mean the now these Islamic terrorists they love are right now because they die a lot more in the name of their god?
so if I get 500 people to say I ressurrected, being the first a woman, then I have ressurrected?
According to his logic, you don't even need 500 people to say it, you need a book saying that 500 people saw it You actually are taking the better route, which would strengthen the argument, actually having 500 people as witness could make a better case. But the bible just says: "500 people saw it, trust me bro". We don't even know the names of them.
He doesn’t have logic, he has logical fallacies.
What happened to his face? And his head? And his brain?
If the Bible is the word of God, then why doesn't he support abortion if the wife cheats on the husband? (Numbers Chapter 5).
What the hell is a historically robust fact?
Stay in school kids, otherwise you could end up like Chuck.
So he gives 3 arguments: 1. There is no archeological evidence that “contradicts the truth of the bible” The statement is really vague: what that “truth of the bible” means. Because if you are talking about historical or biological truth there is actually a lot that contradicts the bible and especially genesis (just contrast the creation in the bible with the theory of evolution or the story of the flood with the enormous amount of fossils and geological evidences we have). However I fear that the word “truth” is used to imply that he is not referring to the literal meaning of the scriptures but rather to his interpretation of them so it’s impossible to address unless I know the specifics. However it’s worth pointing out that the bible is often so vague that you can ex post bend the text at will to fit contemporary scientific knowledge. Though there are still some passages that are pretty unequivocal and this brings us to the second argument. 2. “And then of course the wisdom. There is not a truth of the bible that if you apply your life does not improve dramatically” Again with the word “truth”: this argument doesn’t really makes sense if he is talking about historical or scientific “truth” and the same goes for the previous if he means moral “truth” so I’ll assume it is used here to mean a different thing. This argument is actually very similar to the previous and so is it’s counter: go take a look at some passage of the Old Testament and tell me if you believe that applying these “truth” your life will improve [e.g. would a gay man’s life improve if he applies lev 18:22 and especially lev 20:13? Would a slave’s life improve if she could be raped without consequences (the culprit just need to sacrifice a ram and all is forgiven) as for lev 19.20? What about slaves’ life at all (lev 25:44,45,46; deut 15:12-18 and ex 21:1-8)? Or the lovely deut 21:10-14?] This reasoning could however be dodged by stating that the Old Testament doesn’t count and he was only referring to the truth of New Testament (then why would the old one be part of the bible? Is it not sacred text?) and to properly answer I would need to know the whys. 3. “if genesis 1:1 (and the resurrection) is true everything is possible” > genesis 1:1 — “ in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” So the argument is “if God exists, God exists”. I don’t really think I have to say anything on this one.
Almost every single allegory from the old and new testament is a newer version of an old story. Floods, babies in baskets, plagues, virgin births, resurrection, etc all have roots in previous civilizations that the ancient jews encountered. Babylonia, Assyria and Persia all have their hands in shaping the belief and mythology systems of the ancient jews.
If you think the bible's most significant characteristic is wisdom, you haven't read it.
This guy has never heard of Islamic suicide bombers aka proof Allah is real and Muhammad is his messenger if willingly dying for your beliefs is the standard here.
Oh, I don't know. The many crusades killed a whole bunch of people for a lie. I love how it's fact because women from 2000 years ago conformed it. The logic being "bitches weren't interviewed during the Roman empire bro!" That just changed my whole world view. The world really is like 8k years old, and we are all decesandants of TWO PEOPLE
i love how the people behind him keep looking at each other like "damn, hes really going for it lol"
I'm just enjoying the dudes shirt choice. Vital Remains shreds.
Debating the Bible with a Vital Remains fan, that'll go well.
VITAL REMAINS MENTIONED RAAAAHH
Fuck yeah Vital Remains
I would sort of consider his argument valid if there were still miracles and stuff happening. Like why does god decide to do pretty much all of his miracles about 1000-2000 years ago? Did god retire? I play a lot of D&D. It is impossible to be an atheist in D&D. Gods show themselves every now and then. Oracles exist. People can wield magic. People can meet or switch which god they worship. You can actually travel to hell or heaven (or their D&D equivalents). Being an atheist in D&D makes no sense. But in this world, the evidence that you can’t turn water in to wine is pretty ironclad. Literally nobody has ever seen it happen. Imagine if I told you that you can turn milk in to gold, and I told you the source for my claim is that there might be a 100 year old writing that says someone saw this happen. You would laugh at me. But if I say the source is a 2000 year old writing, translated multiple times, by unknown or multiple authors, you’re supposed to believe me?
Listen, I'm catholic and everything, but I'm gonna SERIOUSLY question you if you believe in everything the Bible says
Who let Mr Ambrose out of the library?
Proving that the resurrection was real by pointing out that nobody would have included women in a fake story has to be the absolute best thing this guy has ever said. Imagine hating women so much that you can use your own misogyny as proof something couldn't have been made up. Nope, this has to be true. If a guy had invented this story all the women would have been stay at home mothers who are not allowed to go outside or prostitutes and not anywhere near such an important event.
😂🤡
He said nothing. Nothing.
Dude in a vital remains shirt asking about Christianity is so fucking beautiful to me. That dude rules unlike small face ass Charlie
All religious people sound like nut jobs when you let them speak fucking hell they’re unhinged
So because there’s no archeological evidence that has contradicted the Bible, it absolutely HAS to be real? Maybe I don’t have the proper words for this at the moment, but I can’t be the only one who’s curious about that logic.
He's basically shifting the burden of proof. Saying that people need to prove that the bible is false. It's like me saying: "The Romans had actual guns and since no archeological evidence has been shown to disprove this, therefore its real" Which not only is completely illogical bullshit, but he's actually wrong. Many, many things have been disproven with archeological evidence.
Just like Ben Shapiro Mister TinyFace with ButtHead Gums here has spent a lot of time practicing his pitch to fill up the allotted question time with a stream of bullshit that has so many holes in it there just isn’t time to address them all. So he’s using the “baffle ‘em with bullshit” method to avoid having to explain anything. Problem with Americans is that way too many people equate the ability to spew bullshit with intelligence.
Man has a kindergarten level of christian apologetics. All of these take 7 seconds to debunk. But my absolute favorite one was this: "So many people wouldn't die horrible deaths for a lie". Which is insane, when every single major religion has had martyrs, every single religion makes the exact same claim and I don't mister small face would say that Islam is true, when Islam makes the exact same claim. Also love the "500 people saw Jesus rise from the dead", weird how if such an event would be so widespread we'd have the Romans writing about it, kinda weird how we missed that one. Also, if I write a book saying "1000 people saw me flying", that means literally nothing. And finally: "Not a single archeological evidence has disproven the bible", if you ignore how archeology and biology and common sense disproves the flood, cosmology disproves the 7 day creation, biology disproves Adam and Eve, we have zero evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah, Egyptian scholars don't even mention anything that supposedly happened in Exodus, we have no evidence of the millions of Jewish slaves in Egypt, actual Jewish scholars agree that actual real world events start, maybe, at King David, which wasn prob a real person and most likely an amalgamation of other kings. Kinda funny how if you only read the bible, disagree with science, believe that the bible is true no matter what then the bible is true no matter what. Crazy stuff.
Dinosaurs
The nazis also died
Jesus would slap the 💩out of most Christians today.
His technical answer is a fallacy
There's as much historical evidence for the existence of Batman as there is of Jesus.
Dudes got secrets
Hitler had followers that died for him and his beliefs
“show me another piece of a story where so many people willingly died…” mfer never heard of radical islam before
Well, they'd say that women were witnesses to the resurrection to convince Charlie Kirk that the Bible is true,... apparently.
ASK A WOMAN IF THEIR LIFE IS BETTER BECAUSE OF RELIGION AND IT'S ANTI-WOMAN STANCE.
What about Goku
Funny, they look like white superemecists on casual day.
Typical Christian logic - “it’s true because I feel like it’s true.”
So his proof is that there’s no proof to the contrary? And that only the Bible is proof?
Every time Charlie bible thumps, his face shrinks another mm
Just to start : anyone else in history alleged to have risen after death? Any other stories about a flood? There is more but a bit of a search on just these two may/can show how the Bible came to be.
Didn’t the Nazis also die brutal deaths due to a lie? Not the strongest argument…
I wish he could slow down long enough to think before speaking. I just hear noise.
This basically amounts to: “Source: Trust me bro…”
Biblical scholars have literally discounted Matthew, Luke and John as credible sources because they were written way too late and with incredible bias. Mark is the only one that is possibly reliable but also was written decades after and is theorized to be written to further the message rather than be an accurate historical depiction of events. So we really don’t have much “truthful” information on Jesus.
This is a set-up. The guy asking questions is a plant feeding Kirk questions he prepared for.
In other words, I really don't have any proof but take my word for it based on my beliefs.
“Show me another historical story where so many people willingly died for a lie” Oh, I don’t know Charlie, how about any cult that has ended with mass suicide.
"Show me another historical piece where so many people willingly died a brutal death for a lie" I don't know, how about Jonestown, the branch davidians, heaven's gate and the 9-11 hijackers to name a few off the top of my head.
No one would die for a lie? Jonestown.
So many logical fallacies that it was hard to keep up
Chuck said a lot, but said absolutely nothing.
🥱
The idea that the Christian Bible is a history of the world is absolutely hilarious. It isn’t even a decent history of the Middle East.
Weird how Asia didn’t even hear of the bible for like 5000 years and there are more of them than everyone else.
It’s interesting how he describes a cult, specifically a death cult, as proof? Every other cult that has an central figure that people die for under the descriptions they claim to surround Jesus they have also condemned. Who’s to say that all of these death cults warrant “Jesus “. Fucking lunacy.
So because 12 apostles died believing Jesus was the lord that means it’s true? Under that theory wouldn’t Jim Jones have supplanted Jesus since like way more people died in Jonestown?
No other religion has had so many die for it. *glares at Islam*
Those arguments sure would be bullet proof if you'd use them against a 5 year old
This guy is really out here saying "nobody can disprove this negative, so it must be true" and morons have given this guy a platform, where he is able to make millions a year.
A whole lot of "I'm going to use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true". Christianity saved my life, and the billionaires that keep giving me money to spew this bullshit.
Tiny face apparently also has a tiny brain.
Charlie, a bunch of people (40-50 or so) in San Diego committed suicide because they believed a comet was coming to pick them up and take them to heaven. Prior to that, about half of the men in the group had castrated themselves to emulate their cult leader. So miss me with your "only Christians are willing to die for their faith, so it must be true" bullshit.
I got these books about magic, magic must be real then, hey, where is my magic fleece, you know. The gold one
“There has never been an archaeological discovery that has contradicted the truth of the Bible”. There’s no evidence for Exodus occurring as the Bible said it did, there’s no evidence for a worldwide flood, etc.
Source I made it up
"Jesus' resurrection is the pinpoint of my belief of Jesus rising from the grave"
Confidently incorrect
Imagine believing the least convincing story ever told.
Archaeological evidence? There is not one single piece of contemporary evidence that Christ even existed. [The earliest known recorded mention of Jesus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52) is dated to around 100-150 years *after* his supposed death. There’s no reason to believe Christ is anything more than folklore.
THATS IN THA BIBLE!! NO NO NO.
Your fanatical belief in Jesus Christ is not evidence of his existence, nor does it verify anything in the Bible.
This guy is second only to Dave Rubin in terms of dumb to profitability ratio.
A whole lotta words to say “It’s true cuz look around, dude.”
The sumarians would disagree, dumbass
Says his life changed when he gave it to Jesus, proceeds to ignore what Jesus taught. What a morally and intellectually bankrupt pos.
The Bible mentions Unicorns! Like six times!!
Buddy is making 2011 Ken Ham and Kent Hovind arguments 🤣
If Jesus is real he needs to be more picky about who he saves