My opening statement in debate with ShwaNerd part 5

[Pelonetillo]

why do you waste your time with this, man? religion is absurd. if it were a different religion you wouldnt believe it. if some dude came up to you and said he was jesus you wouldnt believe it. if some woman said she had gods son in her tummy, youd laugh in her face. stop with this nonsense...

[aliashumanist5]

the kid is trying his best with extremely limited real world experience. when i was his age, and many years after, you couldn't tell me that the bible wasn't true. it's very surreal to me when i see kids using the same arguments that i used.

what we need to do is to continue to implore theists(especially young ones) to try to use their critical mind when studying their particular religion, especially one of the many many forms of christianity.

[Pelonetillo]

this nonsense is just nuts to me. i mean, i used to believe too, but i never went to so much trouble to defend my delusions. i dont know why atheists even entertain these arguments on validity of writings and who did what, etc. look at the dang stories. do they sound the least bit believable? i mean, come on...

[aliashumanist5]

you're correct in that many non-believing scholars won't entertain theism in debate. by dabating it does give some measure of validity to the position. therefore, i don't knock people who won't debate theists.

the reason i like to talk with various theists is that perhaps it will help them to think about their position. they may not embrace reality today, but someday they might.

[aliashumanist5]

all this kid is doing is reading from the william lane craig handbook.

the bible is not a history book. christian apologists believe the bible is the word of god. either all of it is correct or none of it is. without this, all you're doing is creating your own religion.

everything this kid is saying are assertions based on stories of stories of stories.

NOBODY who bothered to write about jesus was even a CONTEMPORARY of him.

[migkillertwo]

"all this kid is doing is reading from the william lane craig handbook."

actually most of my arguments come from a textbook he coauthored with JP Moreland.

oh, and dont criticize me! criticize shwanerd, all he's doing is parroting wikipedia's articles

[aliashumanist5]

i don't know what "scwanerd" said so i'll ignore your red herring.

you just admitted that you have no position and are just "parroting" gp moreland.

so neither one of you is better than the other.

for shits and grins- go to the atheist experience website and go to their archives. go to 2008 and click the "video" option for episode #579. you actually might enjoy it.

[Deliratio]

I watched that one. The guys didn't have a clue what they are talking about, as usual.

[aliashumanist5]

yeah i know. it's like the callers use the same handbook with the same tired apologetic arguments.

i've still haven't gotten bored of matt putting the apologists in their place. : )

[Deliratio]

Actually, it seemed to me like Matt dfailed as much as the caller.

I almost fall of my chair when he said "He sacrificed himself".

[aliashumanist5]

which caller? are you talking about the guy who hung up after matt correctly pointed out that the gospels are not eyewitness reports and we have no clue who wrote the gospels, that josephus is considered an interpolation by most christians, and lee strobel's research is faulty, at best???

is that the one you're taking about??

[Deliratio]

since there are tons of mistakes in that, it could be the one I was talking about.

[aliashumanist5]

yeah. that lee strobel lovin caller made tons of mistakes. matt showed him the errorS of his ways.

[Deliratio]

I am pretty sure that many scholars would disagree here.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "josephus is considered an interpolation by most christians"?

[aliashumanist5]

i'm not a debator. i am not a minister nor a teacher. i don't claim i can spin a yarn. however, 'there are NUMOROUS sources on the net. a simple google search will get you started.

other than ray comfort's crew and a few other asshats, like strobel, habermas and craig- neary every christian i have personally come across will not cite josephus.

josephus's quick mention of james being the brother of jesus is not in question. its the other footnote about jesus that's in question.

[Deliratio]

"actually most of my arguments come from a textbook he coauthored with JP Moreland. "

Blackwells "Companion to Natural Theology"?

[aliashumanist5]

test

[facilisdescenus]

What do you think about the arguments for dualism from near-death and out of body experiences? I watched a lecture on it from habermas. Somehow I tend to lean toward the medically documented stuff.

[facilisdescenus]

Did you see the show on James white's podcast? They played a clip of an interview between Bart Ehrman and infidelguy. Ig started talking about Bob Price and mythicists who thought Jesus did not exist and Paul's letters were forged. Ehrman was trying to politely say that they were nutjobs and not a single scholar gave those ideas credibility. It was great . I'll quote Ehrman here

"You can systematically doubt everything , but that is not how we do history . You do history by looking at evidence"

[migkillertwo]

yes facilis, I listened to that podcast, it was hilarious.

"Watch what happens when Bart Ehrman encounters someone even more liberal than he is!"

[facilisdescenus]

Did you see his response? I hope he realises that the ontological argument against the existence of God was just a joke.

[migkillertwo]

kind of sad really.

all he did was read the wikipedia pages on the arguments I gave.

[facilisdescenus]

It's really sad that he has almost twice as many subscribers as you (you should ask veritas to do a shoutout or something soon)

[migkillertwo]

I dunno, I have some sort of ethical qualm about asking him to do a shoutout for me.

[migkillertwo]

I'm actually a newcomer to apologetics on youtube. most serious apologists here on youtube have actually been in this business longer than I have by ~6 months.

and which piece on the physicality of the resurrection? I did a much more extensive and recent treatise in my christian origins series.

[facilisdescenus]

I meant both series.

[lilchrizz123]

Dont forget google as well...

[Knowntje]

this was some pretty damn long opening statement, this debate is going to take ages if you ask me :p

[lilchrizz123]

I suggest you to block bamboo he's very annoying, just my take on his comments so far.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

"I suggest you to block bamboo he's very annoying, just my take on his comments so far."

This is the cowardly suggestion of one who cannot defend their beliefs. It just screams internal uncertainty- personal doubt.

[lilchrizz123]

Lol you haven't said anything that would make me question my beliefs, I'm already doing that on my own. It's just the manner in which you talk, you seem very snarky and have the "in your face" type of attitude.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

Vice versa.

[Kabane52]

I PMed ShwaNerd and tried to keep my cool. And I actually did. But what is clear is that the guy is the very definition of a skateboard atheist. I am planning to refer to skateboard atheists as "ShwaNerds" in my videos actually. When presented with a case for the resurrection, he said "don't expect me to read all that".

He's lazy, I have a strong suspicion that everything you say will fly over his head, because his head is firmly planted deep inside his ass.

[migkillertwo]

"He's lazy, I have a strong suspicion that everything you say will fly over his head, because his head is firmly planted deep inside his ass."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

This is hypocrisy. You ban people for actions and attitudes you yourself display. You are also selectively enforcing your arbitrary rules.

[lilchrizz123]

"I am planning to refer to skateboard atheists as "ShwaNerds" in my videos actually. "

lol

[Deliratio]

I think the resurrection is a good argument, but I think YouTube-apologists should bring up the trilemma. Dawkins argued "Jesus could have been honestly mistaken" and I don't think the responses will get any better.

[Kabane52]

Haha, I read that. It was actually a bit amusing to think that Dawkins refuted the trilemma without destroying the principle behind it. Sure, it's a "quadrilemma". Yay. If we refute the honestly mistaken option as well as the lunatic and liar option, then he's left with the same problem.

[Deliratio]

I don't think Dawkins really believes it's an option.

Victor Reppert (who wrote "C.S. Lewis dangerous idea") commented:

"OK, so now we get the head-slap argument. There's a third option, he was sincerely mistaken! I never thought of that, therefore I disappear in a puff of logic! Let's see, if I were to tell my intoductory philosophy class that I was God almighty, they wouldn't call the men in the white coats to come and take me away. They'd just figure I was sincerely mistaken."

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

mig, you are a fucking beast

[migkillertwo]

I was actually expecting you to say nearly those exact words (although I wasn't expecting "fucking")

thanks

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

haha, sorry, couldn't contain the domination without the use of a "swear" word *GASP*

[migkillertwo]

in all fairness, his response was better than I expected. I expected ad homs galore and rather than arguments, I expected links to articles and youtube videos.

although I am going to rip his arguments to shreds nontheless.

but its good because we can get some serious dialogue going.

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

Ya, I thought the same, he suprised me with his civility. Ya, it was an okay response, not knowntje level, but I don't really seem any sort of problem with you destroying that.

[GBart]

"empty tomb, the appearances of christ, and the necessity of offering an origin of the christian faith"

This sounds a lot like Strobel's arguments.

Take what you just said and apply it to Islam. There is no tomb of Mohammed (because he ascended bodily to heaven on a winged horse). Allah has revealed himself probably (and mohammed) to just as many Muslims as Jesus to Christians. Finally, there is a necessity to explain the origin of the Muslim faith.

Explain how this exact same reasoning...

[GBart]

...does not also lead you to believe that Mohammed was the true prophet of God.

I think the reasoning is completely bogus for both cases, because it is indistinguishable from fiction, meaning that all these conditions would still be true if the stories were fictional.

[migkillertwo]

simple: Those traditions are very late. the evidence for the appearances in the Hadiths are, well, shaky. Furthermore, why is Islam absurd within its context? furthermore, could skeptics verify the eyewitness accounts? The reasons that witnesses in ancient Rome would be able to verify the accounts were not present in 7th century Arabia.

[GBart]

"evidence for the appearances in the Hadiths are, well, shaky"

Uhh... the Gospel's aren't much better.

"Furthermore, why is Islam absurd within its context?"

What do you mean?

"witnesses in ancient Rome"

If you're talking about the Gospels, read my other comment. If you mean Flavius Josephus, he was born a decade after the given date of Jesus' crucifixion. Not contemporary.

Also, what about the "witnesses" in the gospels of Peter, Philip, Mary and Judas? They WERE contemporary.

[GBart]

"known and accessible eyewitnesses"

such as?

[migkillertwo]

joseph of arimathea, nicodemus, the Gospel women, the disciples, etc.

[GBart]

So you're first accepting that the Gospel account is accurate, and using that basis to extract witnesses from the story.

Thousands of witnesses were at the battle of Minas Tirith. They witnessed Gandalf's magic firsthand. That proves he was a real wizard right?

No.

Because the "witnesses" only appear in the same story that supposedly describes what they witnessed.

Look up Sathya Sai Baba too. Millions of people ALIVE TODAY have witnessed his "miracles". So is he God too?

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

"So you're first accepting that the Gospel account is accurate, and using that basis to extract witnesses from the story."

Yes. Absolutely. He enters into this making dozens of presuppositions based on faith alone and expects us all to consider them valid.

[urbster1]

HOW do we know that "the Gospel traditions were passed on by known and accessible eyewitnesses"? You seem to believe in a world where miracles happen all the time, where something like seeing an empty tomb suddenly becomes a reason for believing in the metaphysics of resurrection. What do you say to someone who might rebut, "But maybe they were just looking in the wrong tomb!"? What if the stories are all made up to begin with? How can you know for certain that this is the truth?

[lilchrizz123]

, "But maybe they were just looking in the wrong tomb!"?

How does that explain them seeing the Risen Christ?

[lilchrizz123]

risen*

[urbster1]

Either it was someone else who was not actually Jesus, or Jesus never died, or someone made the stories up. Any of those things are more likely accounts because there remains no reasoning based on evidence to support the metaphysics of resurrection. No proof of "souls" has ever been discovered. Human beings are naturally easy to deceive and fool, so therefore any explanation that does not involve a supernatural account of human existence is infinitely more likely to have happened.

[lilchrizz123]

Either it was someone else who was not actually Jesus, or Jesus never died, or someone made the stories up

Dude, that's a false trichotomy you don't even say that its possible that Jesus Christ died and resurrected.

Either it was someone else who was not actually Jesus, or Jesus never died, or someone made the stories up

So you dismiss that Jesus was a historical man, put to death on the cross under Pontius Pilate?

[urbster1]

I don't believe in the metaphysics of "resurrection." When people die, they're gone. Prove it to be otherwise!

I don't dispute Jesus as a historical person, but there is no physical evidence to show that anything "resurrects" after death, which means that it is merely superstitious belief to think that someone's soul sticks around after they die. There are more rigorous standards for evidence now than there were back then, when people were often fooled, as they still are, to believe nonsense.

[lilchrizz123]

I don't dispute Jesus as a historical person,

So who do you think Jesus was?

[urbster1]

Some kind of wise man or moral teacher for his time, like a mystic, someone who offers wisdom and a life path. Other examples would be the Buddha, or G.I. Gurdjieff, I suppose. Who's to say who Jesus really was? Lots of Gospels were written about him, but only 4 ended up in the Bible. Why do the other Gospels exist if they don't provide true or accurate accounts of events in Jesus' life? How easily should we accept that a 2000 year old text contains solid proof of supernatural events?

[Deliratio]

"Why do the other Gospels exist if they don't provide true or accurate accounts of events in Jesus' life?"

Because there were tons of gnostic sects.

[urbster1]

In all honesty I cannot even care about what the Gospels actually say, because we have other ancient texts that also describe miracles. We have a million eyewitnesses today who will testify that their favorite Indian guru can perform supernatural feats. Show me a thousand stories that say Christ resurrected and you STILL have no basis to believe in the metaphysics of resurrection at all. There is no proof of souls and no proof of life after death. The Gospels do not suddenly make this credulous.

[Deliratio]

I don't think you understand the resurrection-argument.

[urbster1]

It's because there is no argument for resurrection. There can't be, until we have a basis for believing in a 'soul' or 'spirit,' some kind of immaterial part of our being, for which there currently exists no evidence whatsoever, just like fairies. Even if this is true we still have to account for mind-body dualism. This is an argument against faith in the supernatural. A man cannot rise from the dead. Anyone with reasonable standards of evidence for their beliefs will realize this.

[Deliratio]

There is little reason to think your a priori-objections carry any weight.

[urbster1]

If you want to live in a pretend land, sure. Do you know the difference between fiction and fact?

[Deliratio]

Do you know the difference between an argument and saying "You are wrong"?

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

"There is little reason to think your a priori-objections carry any weight."

Burden shifting. If you think zombies are real (sans the tetrodotoxin) then you need to prove that.

[Kabane52]

Mig, I strongly recommend a policy of banning all people who refer to God as "skydaddy" and the risen Jesus as "a zombie". It is quite clear that such people are not only idiots, but not interested in actual dialogue.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

Kabane you are a coward and a hypocrite.

[Kabane52]

A coward? Those who use words like skydaddy tend to be the easiest people to crush in real argument, as they come from the mythicist crowd. We can have an argument here or on TWeb if you are so confident in your ability to crush my arguments. I'll even make a video about it if we do a TWeb debate! As for the hypocrisy charge, if you haven't noticed already, I don't take people who aren't interested in serious dialogue seriously. I have never insulted a seeker or someone interested in dialogue.

[HumanStrategy]

Am I to understand that god is not a skydaddy (being observant of the sky and a father figure to us all) and Jesus wasn't resurrected from the dead (zombie)?

It sounds like Kabane wants to be very authoritarian about the labels and expressions of those with dissenting opinions. I find it very 'theocratic' of you to suggest K-bear.

[lilchrizz123]

"Am I to understand that god is not a skydaddy (being observant of the sky and a father figure to us all) and Jesus wasn't resurrected from the dead (zombie)?"

Those are stereotypical terms use against Christians frequently on youtube.Now you are trying to justify what they mean , why can't you just say God instead of the skydaddy thing and say the resurrected Jesus instead of a zombie. Personally it helps when you debate, those are just demeaning terms trying to make fun of others beliefs.

[HumanStrategy]

They are not demeaning at all because they are accurate. You must deal with what your religion gives you; some call it 'cleansing the planet of sin except 7 people' while other call it 'nearly complete genocide'

It simply doesn't matter.

[lilchrizz123]

OK, zombie is a pretty accurate definition because it means a body raised supernaturally, but many people tend to use it in the context of horror movies, where the zombie is all bloody and wants to eat you. Anyways, I don't understand how skydaddy is accurate. Observant of the sky?? So hes observant of cows so you could call him cowdaddy as well...

[HumanStrategy]

"So hes observant of cows so you could call him cowdaddy as well..."

Thanks for the tip. Of course, calling god an 'everything daddy' just doesn't have a ring to it. I find that most of us go to 'skydaddy' because so many of you look to the sky when worshiping, as if god is 'more present' above you than within, around, or beneath you.^^

[lilchrizz123]

Lol yeah , especially when your in the church its like looking at a ceiling I dunno about that either.

[HumanStrategy]

Yes, thus I find no reason to stop using the terms Skydaddy and Zombie.^^

[lilchrizz123]

No fsm's though. :)

[HumanStrategy]

DO you know for certain that your god has no noodley appendages, pasta sauce or flying ability?

Nobody is so knowledgeable of such a thing. Don't let your solipsism and arrogance get the best of you.^^

[lilchrizz123]

I can say the same statement for you...DO you know for certain that my God has noodley appendages, pasta sauce or flying ability?

Nobody is so knowledgeable of such a thing. Don't let your solipsism and arrogance get the best of you.^^

[HumanStrategy]

I am not claiming a god exists so it makes no sense to refute something I never asserted. You simply have much to learn of argumentation and logic.

This is all. Our conversation is over.

[lilchrizz123]

What in the world are you talking about. When did I say that you were claiming such?

"Nobody is so knowledgeable of such a thing."

Your saying that "nobody is so knowledgeable of such a thing" By that logic, your in no position to say what this deity has or doesn't have. Yet your doing it. Its like your saying no one can know a thing about God, then you say God has six heads and a pink tail.

[HumanStrategy]

"By that logic, your in no position to say what this deity has or doesn't have."

I am not claiming a god exists so turning the argument around upon someone who has no claim is nonsense.

"...saying no one can know a thing about God, then you say God has six heads and a pink tail."

When did I ever say that I know anything about the properties of god? Scroll through our conversation. I claim no such thing.

This is why is it a blatant non-sequitur and a fine example of failed logic on your part.

[migkillertwo]

"There can't be, until we have a basis for believing in a 'soul' or 'spirit,' some kind of immaterial part of our being, for which there currently exists no evidence whatsoever, just like fairies."

okay urbster, I would suggest you watch part 4 of my opening statement, I actually gave evidence for mind/body dualism.

[urbster1]

I already commented on it. There can be no such thing, as Dan Dennett explains in the aptly-tited "Consciousness Explained." Future neuroscience WILL be able to describe mental states in the way you claim they ought to be in your video.

[Kabane52]

Gnosticism appeared in the second century, and their texts come from the mid to late second century and beyond. The biblical gospels come from the mid to late first century.

[Kabane52]

"not actually Jesus"

Twin theory. Please see my video called "The Best Case for Christianity: Reconstruction"

"or Jesus never died"

Swoon theory. Do you actually believe this?

"someone made the stories up"

Please see my videos on the empty tomb and on the eyewitnesses. They show that it was in fact NOT made up.

[Deliratio]

Gary Habermas laid the foundation for the resurrection-apologetic because he came to the conclusion that one can make a a case for the resurrection on universally accepted and heavily supported facts, which Mike Licona sums up like this:

- death on the cross

- empty tomb

- appearance followers and sceptics

WLC includes the rising messiah, but that's the core.

Arguments for those facts deserve a discussion, but in debates there usually isn't enough time for it.

[Deliratio]

I just noticed that mig also includes "the new idea of a rising messiah" (and also a little bit of "christianity is improbable).

To answer your question:

"But maybe they were just looking in the wrong tomb!"

The honoral burial account makes this impossible.

Also, the disciples started to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem. The jewish leaders would simply have pointed to the correct tomb. There were also some jewish-christian polemics from that time.

[Kabane52]

I suspect migkillertwo is about to inform you of the massive body of evidence presented in Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses".

[Theologica37]

schanerd's local walmart is suddenly COMPLETELY out of tissues? It was on the local news, his home town is in crisis.

[migkillertwo]

I dont get it.

[Theologica37]

i suspect there was quite a bite of tissues bought by schanerd since your opening statement was uploaded

[lilchrizz123]

Do you mean he was crying or something lol?

[Theologica37]

yeah lol

[migkillertwo]

well he is going to respond sometime tonight, but he's got a whole bunch of school projects to finish.

I think he was procrastinating.

[lilchrizz123]

Lol wow

[Knowntje]

I thought you meant he was jacking off like crazy

[Deliratio]

probably