What.A.Stupid.Argument. Tim Minchin only EVER told us his opinion, no matter how individuals will respond. THAT is worthy of some respect. After all, isn't that what you are doing with this "video"?As an atheist (yes, I can hear you sigh), I can only applaud a man who can express his true emotion towards a particular subject.Are you afraid that people's opinions may differ from yours? Does it scare you? Or is it a case that I (nor T.M.) do not conform with the masses? Worrying... EACHTOTHEIROWN!
You appear more worried than I am ironically! I am simply pointing out to some atheists that some of them are taking Minchin far too seriously by implying he's constructing some grand philosophical argument against Christianity when clearly he's not. That's all. No tears - no tantrums. You appear afraid that I might have a differing opinion to yours!!
I think he is making a serious point. Not in his analogies but by highlighting the ridiculous qualities Christians believe Jesus has/had. The comparisons are just for comic effect.
How can he be making serious points about the "ridiculous qualities Christians believe" if his analogies are disanalogous??? Are you people that thick?!
@TheCartesianTheist Ok, I'll repeat...the analogies are irrelevant!! They are just a comedic device. The point remains with or without them. He calls Jesus a komodo dragon and a hovercraft, obviously they're not meant to be taken seriously as analogies. But the point is that actually believing Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, rose from the dead etc is ridiculous.
BUT the analogies are ALL HE'S SAYING!!! "...believing Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, rose from the dead etc is ridiculous."
That's a lovely ASSERTION but you have failed to demosntrate how any of those things are "ridiculous" other than via ridicule [not a well accepted intellectual tool].
I seriously think you've misunderstood the whole idea of satire. Satire does exist to make legitimate points, and Minchin's here is that the whole notion of Jesus as a figure who did magic tricks, rose from the dead, was born of a virgin, etc. is silly, and he does so through juxtaposition with modern ideas that we find absurd. It's done for rhetorical effect, not philosophical argument, although it is possible to make philosophical arguments to similar effect.
If you are suggesting that Minchin is trying to make any serious criticisms of Christianity then you are making both yourself and him look very silly. The supposed "juxtapositions" are category errors at best and made up at worst. You've got a very weak argument against Christianity if this is the backbone of your case!
Sorry, but I think you don't get the point of this song at all. I understand, that for a believer, it could be hard. For me, this song is absolutely brilliant way how to show christians, that their beliefs are ridiculous. Point is that if Jesus was a real historical person, he was just great thinker, charming and I don't know what else, but the rest of the fairy tale was evolved later from gossips and some of the stuff were made up by church later on.
On the contrary. I feel sorry for atheists who have to use such humour and category errors on order to make themselves feel better about their rejection of theism. Instead of engaging in serious debate they resort to making up their own myths - like the ones you finish with. The accounts of Jesus from the NT are first century. If it was made up it was made up from the very beginning and did not evolve later. The manuscript evidence alone shows this.
Ok, you obviously don't know much about how the bible was copied before the printing.
1. The original text is not known
2. There are diferences in various versions made in different times or places.
Try to read for example this book: "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why".
And if you demand a serious debate about religion, I recommend: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. There's a lot of serious arguments to think about. :)
Obviously I knoew a heck of a lot more about it than you do since I've done some textual criticism in my formal education.
1. That assertion of yours is absolutely pathetic. Unlike you I'll give a reason! The NT has more manuscript evidence for cross referencing than all the Greek philosophers put together! 5000+. Then there are the whole codexes such as Sinaitucus and Vaticanus. There's so much mss evidence, in fact, that your contention is obscurantist.
2. You offer me Ehrman? He's been more than replied to. In fact, his mentor at Princeton, the legendary NT scholar Bruce Metzger had already defeated most of Ehrman's arguments before Ehrman even put pen to paper. Try reading his 'The Text of the NT' - which is considered a classic in the field of study. Ehrman also got soundly refuted by Dr Peter Williams on the 'Unbelievable' radio show in debate with him a few months back. It's on itunes. For now check this:
"And if you demand a serious debate about religion, I recommend: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins."
Serious??? You want me to read a book on theology written by a biologist? I'm sorry but I have read that book and could tell you about a plethora of mistakes he's made in there. He doesn't even get Richard Swinburne's profession correct!! I already have a video demonstrating how he got Aquinas wrong in that book. Loads of people have destroyed that popularist tripe!
"You want me to read a book on theology written by a biologist?" Yes, because he is right. Or you do believe in everything what's written in the Bible? That we come from Adam and Eve? Eden and talking snake? Really? Science and biology especially has so much evidence about evolution that you SHOULD listen. Btw. I don't know about any "destructions of that popularist tripe", but I have seen many failed attempts instead.
Not sure where you got that info, but the gospels are not first century. Evidence shows them to be much later. There are arguments that they are accurate transcriptions from the oral tradition that was first century, but there are no manuscripts that can be traced back that far. Further, if you're going to argue that we should accept them because they are first century, then you need to accept the gnostic gospels, which date back just as far.
The mss evidence goes right back to the beginning of the second century now which demonstrates that they had to be first century documents due to their wide distribution and copies of them found in the second century. Even liberal dates now rarely go later than the end of the first century for this reason. The evidence os simply too good. Textual attestation for the gnostic gospels is not as good either!
"...the amount of evidence for the text of the NT, whether derived from mss, early versions, or patristic quotations, is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions."
In order to cast any serious doubt on the authenticity of the text of the NT the evidence of the proto-Alexandrian textual tradition would have to be seriously damaged. However the dating for them is very well agreed as second century and the geography such that it pushes the date of the originals back many more years. p45, p46, p66, p75, aleph, B, the Sahidic, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and other Pauline papri would need to be redated radically. Can you do that?
There is no such worldview for the tooth fairy I'm afraid to tell you.
Also the McGrews have answered and replied to all claimed "rebuttals". You do actually know that finding an article which claims to refute a case doesn't mean it's actually done it don't you? If only refuting people were that easy!!
@TheCartesianTheist I am sorry to inform you that many worldviews are incorrect.
Reading both sides of the McGrews paper, I have to say the were consistently bested by the debunker.I have no need to read any further anymore than if their paper were reviewing the tooth fairy.The logic was deeply flawed and would not have passed as a first semester term paper.
Well I just find it funny that you don't bring up any specifics at all but just assert that you feel they were debunked. You give not one example of the logic being "deeply flawed" at all. I would have thought you could have given me one example of such at least?
My point has always been, in any case, that a worldview stands on many divergent forms of evidence and they never stand or fall on one particular issue. It is the cumilative case for theism which makes it strong.
He is not making fun Jesus, he is making fun of people who believe things like people rising from the dead.He is just pointing out how silly Christianity is.The Zombie joke is my favorite. Its funny and it just points out how couching the same idea in different terms points out how absurd the actual idea of resurrection is.
@TheCartesianTheist Occam's razor, the actual resurrection of Jesus vs made up story about resurrection are far from equiprobable .I have the high ground here, I am not making a supernatural claim. Easy for my to say its fictitious.
Nice misuse of Occam's Razor. The resurrection of Jesus should not be taken out of the worldview context it exists in. And the claim of naturalism to this event you make should not be taken out of context with, which will undoubtably become for you, metaphysical naturalism. Therefore you don't have the high ground. You have an assumption [naturalism] which has a plethora of serious philosophical problems which have been levelled against it.
First, there is not an "absence of reasonable and sufficient evidence". Second, it's the nature of the definition of zombie which makes it an insufficient comparison with Christian resurrection which makes it a laughable comparison. The case for the resurrection of Jesus is strong [see the probablistic case outlined by Timothy and Lydia McGrew for example] and is wedded to a stronger intellectual position than metaphysical naturalism [viz. theism].
That statement is complete bollocks.I found the paper you are referring to and loved it. I find it so entertaining when Christians use syllogistic gymnastics to try to prove their point.In any case the paper was hardly robust.You would have to start as a believer to be convinced by it. I found a nice debunking. You can find it by googling "My Rebuttal to the McGrews - Rewritten".
@TheCartesianTheist "First, there is not an "absence of reasonable and sufficient evidence". " --> Yeah, I remember when I used to believe that. Then I spent some time and thought and realized there is much, much more evidence for the existence of Santa Clause. In fact, when I was 9, a friend had personal experience and testimony of S.C. visiting, while both her parents were there with her, secretly watching S.C. deliver gifts. So, is that reasonable and sufficient evidence for Santa?
OK, finally! You DO get it! it's a joke. A "laughable comparison".
So why did you make this long video, pretending to not understand that TM was making a "laughable comparison"? Why didn't you just laugh at the comparison?
Duh! That's what I ahve been saying all along! It's nothing more than a joke in which Minchin is making NO serious criticisms of Christianity at all. THat's why I said I don't understand why it was cut from the show and how I understand how it can be funny. The purpose of the video is to say to atheists who take him as making a serious point that it is THEY who are missing the fact that this is just humour and he's making no serious point!
It's not a "presumption". Perhaps you're not aware but there are academics in the highest posts in the world's finest universities who are Christians. Clearly the presumption is all yours mate!
@TheCartesianTheist In fact I am aware that there are intelligent people (a slight percentile) in academia who suspend disbelief for drivel-laden superstition. Not many but some. Then again, there are some intellectuals who also wear women's clothing and sell their bodies for sex as fun - it doesn't make it right or acceptable. Exceptions are to every rule.
Oh there's a good few more than you would know that's for sure! It would make you uncomfortable to find out. There has been a revival of theism in academic philosophy in the last twenty years. But, unlike you, I'm not using the figures to make some point whereas you are. Now, whose the more stupid? The person using an ad populum fallacy or the person not? Would you like me to translate that for you? Clearly you were off school the day they taught logic.
@TheCartesianTheist Now you have me outwardly laughing. I am unsure which country you are referring to, but in the USA at least, 93% of the National Academy of Science is atheist. I also did not quote any static figures, so you are building a fake straw man in your unsupportable argument. As for logic - I could post my credentials, but that would simply be boasting. I challenge you to show me some actual logic, then we can discuss.
But science is not the academic study of God's existence!! That's like surveying scientists to decide whether there are, in their opinion, any substantive synthetic a priori truths!! You don't ask a scientist that question. You ask philosophers - that's their field of study. Philosophy of religion is the academic subject which studies the evidence for the existence of God - not science!! So you have gone to the wrong subject mate. Yet more evidence that you're a noob to this
@TheCartesianTheist No, actually you are the 'noob at this' (nice phraseology). Science determines whether something exists or does not. I am done here, as you are not only delusional, but like to fake that you have any concept of science or academia... lol
I am actually sad that I wasted any time posting to your ignorant video.
Science does not dtermine whether objective truth exists. It does not determine whether any metaphysical realities exist. It does not determine whether anything has value or whether anything can be right or wrong. It does not determine a whole range of things! Of course you're done here. Despite your sad little rant you have no argument and that's why you're leaving. I am sad you posted here too. Please spend some time reading up on the subject instead of spreading ignorance
Go ahead and post your credentials. It won't scare me in the slightest I assure you. You are the one right now flirting with an ad populum as your ONLY reason to justify mocking theism. That alone tells me your credentials are not in logic or philosophy and it seems very unlikely they're in theology either given your overconfidence. So you're probably another scientist just gagging to demonstrate how you don't know the first damn thing about philosophy. Go for it.
So are you saying that the use of analogy is fundamentally flawed, and therefore the argument that TM is presenting is somehow invalid? Ridiculous. The bible is full of analogies and metaphors which it uses to convey a message. I have no problem with that, despite the fact that I have a problem with the bible. It is not Tim's use of analogy that attracts people to this song - they like this song because he uses analogy and metaphor in such a clever way in order to ridicule Christianity!
No. I am saying the analogy is false and therefore Tim cannot possibly be offering us any kind of argument since I don't believe he's that stupid! How many times am I going to have to explain that to atheists on here? Ad infinitum it appears!!
If he really is using false analogies to "ridicule Christianity" then that shows how desperate and how utterly stupid atheists have become of late. David Hume would be ashamed!
@TheCartesianTheist the songs are very much a critique of Christianity in a satirical way. He isnt so much suggesting that because he rose from the dead, that he is just like the zombies of now, hes pointing out that while zombies are regarded has stupid fiction, and in some Christian groups the work of Satan, Jesus having risen from the dead is the definition of a zombie
"...Jesus having risen from the dead is the definition of a zombie"
You see - you're one of them. You're taking Minchin too seriously. There's no way he's so stupid as to be making anything more than comedy here. if you think he's even making a semi-serious point then you are claiming he's a complete noob. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is not the definition of a zombie - look the definition of the latter up!
I think you comletely missed the point of this song in your 'analyzing' of it. Tim sings not against religion and Jesus per say, but brings some of Jesus' characteristics into the world of today, using examples. It just so happens that these examples are made to make Jesus look completely unbelieveable and unrealistic.
Also, you edited out the bit where he calls himself Jesus. Well, there's more proof Tim is the son of God than the one in the Bible.
No you miss the point. I am saying it's a mistake to analyse it at all. the minute you do you see there cannot be ANY serious point being made. If there really is some serious point being made [as you suggest] then Tim becomes an idiot and I don't believe he is - just a great comedien.
For someone trying to talk up his chances you sure aren't doing yourself any favours. Up above I put three of the most used online dictionary definitions of 'zombie'. Notice how none of them come anywhere near to close to the Christian concept of bodily resurrection. Therefore the game you're playing [of guilt by linguistic association] is making you look like you never even made it to first year but dropped out sometime in your early teens.
@TheCartesianTheist Yeah. Especially since I never studied philosophy. Well. Keep praying. But be careful. If god starts talking back to you, you will be put in mental hospital. Unless some older dude from Vatican decides otherwise.
I think you might have a logical fallacy. Just because something is meant to be funny and humorous, doesn't mean it doesn't also say something. If I make fun of a pedophile using a joke, yes it's suppose to be funny, no I don't think it's right. Minchin is making fun of a bronze age myth that people stupidly hold today with a joke medium. Actually, if you look at all of his work, that's a common theme.
Oh dear. It was aimed at the atheist audience who keep suggesting that Minchin has made some great intellectual critique of Christianity with this piece of comedy. Thereby making themselves look the fool. Okay? You can breath again now okay? Phew!
if you bothered to read Tim's blog post that came with the video you would see that he was comparing the tricks/abilities that Jesus had to modern day analogy's
Also as to your first point about height remains of human beings from when Jesus was apparently walking the earth have shown that people were shorter then they are now so if you compare him to the average size that human beings are now he would be considered short
And yes if some one came back to life I would hit them with a shovel
Bloody hell! You people cannot even make your minds up how you should interpret him. One minute he's not making any points and it's comedy and the next his comedy is really just a ruse for some hyper-intellectual critique of religion. You guys need to make your minds up because you're making yourselves look like fools. But then mentioning 'memes' may have already blown your cover!! ;)
@TheCartesianTheist other then the point I was making about height, both my comments were going after the same conclusion only the second was worded better.
And while I understand the point behind the video, You made the same mistake that I did with my first comment, I didn't anticipate how others would read it, nor did I anticipate that I would #£$% up getting my point across.
@TheCartesianTheist Cause art can be interpreted in only one way and is never multidimensional. You are such a fool and attention whore. Otherwise you wouldn't make this video response to the song "If I didn't have you"
@TheCartesianTheist Linking this video to "If I didn't have you" makes you a fool too. I guess you are first year philosophy student who recently learned some fancy names?
That's why this video is here. Exactly for people like yourself who don't understand that some things in comedy should not be taken too seriously! After all that was the point of my video if you even bothered to watch it all the way through?! Duh!!
Did you just really demonstrate that Tim used a sophism and therefor Jesus was not necessary an actual zombie?
Tim is mocking religion because it's human's history's biggest scam. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. To support a huge claim, one needs to present huge evidence.
Tim entertains those who can think by themselves, using this scam as a theme. Thing is, you can no more prove that Jesus wasn't a zombie as we can disprove God's existence.
Funny how you talk about thinking for yourself when you're full of tried and tested atheist quips yourself?
"To support a huge claim, one needs to present huge evidence."
Well that's a HUGE epistemic claim so where is the huge evidence to support it.
Also there is evidence for the existence of God. And there is a very good case for the resurrection of Jesus whereas there is no such thing for zombies. Sorry.
Let me make it simple for you. No atheist thinks of "magical woody allen zombie jesus" as a profound philosophical argument that disproves religion. It is, however, a point used to mock your religion.
@TheCartesianTheist It is embarrassing because you think you are clever. And actually, no, you are not clever. This is because you think you've discovered a set of logical fallacies in a "proof" against your religion. When in fact it is your own mis-categorization (and some of the less intelligent atheists too, no doubt) that led you to believe thus, instead of what it actually is: A mockery of a subset of your beliefs because they are so ridiculous in the modern world.
I am pretty sure the point of the song is to look at the different qualities that jesus had through a modern perspective. If any serious point is to be made here, it's that people thousands of years ago may interpret these qualities as divine, but in a modern context they would not be. Example: "jesus was a great entertainer", doing tricks and sleight-of-hand to impress the ignorant people of eons past may convince people of some divine power or influence, but today we know better.
He's using this fallacy of association to mock the people who do believe in Jesus. He's pointing out how ridiculous it seems, and exaggerating his points purposely to make it clear it's a mockery. It seems like you're the only one who tried to read into it like you did. So congratulations, you missed the point entirely.
So you think he's that stupid that he'd descend to mocking people whilst using a logical fallacy? Maybe he was but I'm trying to give a kinder interpretation to let him off the hook.
@TheCartesianTheist That's not at all what he's saying. I don't see where you're getting the notion he's stupid. He's pointing out what he believes to be the stupidity of others. He's being sarcastic, and that doesn't make him stupid.
Did you even make it to the end of my video??? My answer is "No - he's NOT that stupid!!!" The video is criticising atheists who posted on the thread under the original video that Minchin was making some fantastic critique of Christianity in his parody and he's not.
@TheCartesianTheist But you're proposing that if my argument is right (which it is) then he is stupid, which is un-true. And yes, I did watch until the end. It's quite obvious it's not a literal critique of the idea of Christianity, but the idea that it is absurd it meant to be taken seriously. What I'm trying to say you didn't need to make a video like this to prove such an obvious point.
I'm not "presupposing" it. I'm arguing it. I'm giving reasons for it. If you and/or Minchin are really arguing that it's absurd to believe p because it's absurd to believe q then you have a serious logical problem going on [and many atheists are and therefore do]. Disanalogies make for good jokes but they do not make for good critiques.
@TheCartesianTheist Well then what are you supposing? That he really believes in Christianity? That is clearly not true, but it is the only other option.
Of course it's not the only other option!! There are hundreds of other options. Here's just one. That Minchin is an atheist and that he loves making fun of religion but he knows he's not really making any serious points when he does so.
@TheCartesianTheist Speaking on the level of the individual points he's making in this video, correct. That's really fucking obvious, as I've pointed out before. But he IS serious in his point that religion isn't logical. I'm through commenting on this video, because we're becoming completely repetitive.
Well it's not obvious at all to a lot of atheists who, on his threads, say he's making some great theological point when clearly he's not!
Also you now sound like one of them yourself by saying that on the "individual points" he's not making a serious point but that overall he's making the point that religion isn't logical? How can you be making that point when all your specific points are disanalogous?! That's not logical in the slightest.
I would entirely disagree by the way. If you have watched any amount of Minchin then you will know it is a great bone of contention of his and he is quite aware that there is a serious point to be made when it comes to faiths because of the repercussions that faiths can and do have for the world. It is certainly not just humour. He is using humour to transport ideas and vice versa. I fear it is you who has no understanding of humour and satire.
So when Stalin burned down churches and killed Christians it had nothing to do with the fact that he wanted an atheistic society rid of religion? Sometimes atheists annoy me!
@TheCartesianTheist The you worded it made it sound as though just being an atheist kills people, also whether he was an atheist or not Stalin most likely would have killed anyway, some people cant help stuff like that they just get urges and will find just about any reason to justify it
Absolute rubbish!! The slide before the Stalin one made it clear that this would be a fallacy of association therefore I'm MOCKING anyone who would use that argument!! Please pause and read the slide immediately prior to the Stalin syllogism and you will see that we're actually in AGREEMENT!! ;)
Dude its meant to be funny not trying to describe actual events, i agree with lots of things Tim minchin says, I'm an atheist too. and studies have shown that people were alot shorter 2000 years ago
The solution is a simple one. Don't watch my videos or write on my threads!! I mean - I've not come anywhere near you at all and yet I'm the troll?? Projecting much? ;)
@TheCartesianTheist Arguing and reasoning with logic are two different things, this is why you fail. As i said, watch the video storm and you will see Tims Opinions on The supernatural and other things in the form of a 9 minute beat poem.
Well thanks for wasting 9 minutes of my life I won't get back. Minchin sets himself up against some dipsy, anti-science spiritualist in a poem and you think he's onto something? Has Minchin not read enough to know that the controversy hypothesis has been long overthrown? Does he not know that without the likes of theists such as Descartes it's likely modern optics would be 200 years behind itself? Look how many Christians were great inventors!
But then Minchin does something even worse. He pretends there's virtually no philosophy in his worldview. Only what is scientific can be true. But this won't work as he demonstrates, because he concludes there is truth! He claims that he knows he is "insignificant" - pray tell when did science get to teach values? So whilst I take my hat off to a good poet I moan at yet another New Atheist having a go at philosophy!!
@TheCartesianTheist Ok, let me put this as simply as I can. People like you, are the reason people like me will live a stressful life. People like you are what are holding the world back from advancing, if you can not get it through your thick fucking head that minchin is simply making the point that in regards to the sheer size of the world and the amount of people in it he is a tiny piece of carpet, you must be a complete utter retard!Values are taught by obvservation, nub.
Wow. Your misrepresentation of science as if it's some atheist enterprise is quite shocking. Did you not know how many theists have made huge contributions to science and technology just in the last two hundred years? Would you like me to name some for you? The list is very long and distinguished. And getting as angry as you are is only making your view look all the more irrational and emotive. PS. there is such a thing as the 'controversy hypothesis'. Google it mate.
@TheCartesianTheist You're just demonstrating that it's possible for theists to do science, which is of course true because one can hold to methodological naturalism (a requirement for doing science) without holding to ontological naturalism. That information is hardly useful at all as to whether religion is either helpful or a hindrance to science, and a cursory study of the history of religious attitudes toward science will help disabuse you of the notion that science owes theism anything.
@TheCartesianTheist And stop replying, you keep twisting whatever you read/see in your head to form the most STUPID things i have ever read on youtube, this is NOT about "The controversy hypothesis" which doesn't fucking exist, it's not about his apparent "lack of philosophy" it's about you being a stupid butthurt christian that can't accept the fact that you've been lied to. Grow the fuck up and realise there aint god, and maybe you'll live for yourself now, not noone after
The atheist philosopher David Hume was the one who famously raised the point that you cannot get values from facts and an 'ought' from an 'is' and professional atheist philosophers have, on the whole, continued to agree with him up to today. Therefore the very academics from your perspective disagree with you on that one. Empirical science does not give us values I'm afraid to tell you.
@TheCartesianTheist "Insignificant" is an observation in relation to the immense scope of the universe and the immensely limited scope of people, so yes, it's based in science.
The fact that you are making a video on why we shouldn't take tim minchin seriously....shows that you take him seriously.
At the same time, no atheist takes it seriously, as it is comedy, and we understand what comedy is. We simply think minchin is clever and funny, but not one of us would use these arguments in an actual theological debate, jesus!
"The fact that you are making a video on why we shouldn't take tim minchin seriously....shows that you take him seriously."
That's faulty thinking. As I stated, I can make the video since I take seriously the fact that many atheists are taking him too seriously and this is the purpose of the video. Not so much MInchin but the unthinking Minchinites. And if you think none of them do then just read ten pages of comments under his videos.
Obviously this video producer has not seen much of Tim Minchin. Making fun of creationist is part of every show he does. I guess in a christians defense thats not a very hard thing to do.
I wonder what gave the joke away...? errr... the song is called Woody Allen Jesus- this is funny. All he is doing is making a light hearted comparison between things in the bible and modern day things we can relate to. Its just funny, nothing else. No-one was meant to take it too seriously, tim certainly didn't while writing it
Whether some Jesus existed or not, doesn't change the fact that there was absolutely nothing special about him or her and that he had nothing original or unique to say that millions of people before him in hundreds of cultures throughout the world had said earlier, and there is ZERO proof that he was "divine".
How can atheists take him literally when they don't believe any of the things the bible says about Jesus, most don't even believe there was such a person, let alone that he was the son of god and god?
By the way I'm not an atheist, I really don't label myself, but I did find a nice word I like to use to describe my views on the subject it's called IRRELIGIOUS
Well most atheists may not believe there was an actual person called Jesus but most historians of antiquity do so they are the ones looking stupid on that front not Christians!
Without picking a fight with any side, I'd just like to explain the short thing. Scholars, both secular and religious have come to a consensus on the physique of Jesus, it's pretty clear from all available records that Jesus was an average looking Palestinian, physiologically speaking. The average male today is taller than the average male at the time of Christ. That's all that means.
Shooting you is not an option ethically for me. Neither do I feel like shooting you either. Please just watch a video before trashing it in the comments section please?! Thanks.
@EnlightenedReader "I'm saying if zombies were real, they'd occur naturally" Ok, that's nonsense. In popular media, SOMETIMES they're a result of things like 'diseases' and whatnot, however, they're ALSO sometimes a result of supernatural causations.
@SimplyPaul depends on the definition of "god" , the sun as a sun god that nourishes the earth dose exist , the christian imaginary friend exists as a form of an unhealthy neural pathway, the flying spaghetti monster and the biblical jehova don't. it all depends on your definition of the elusive word "god".
Ah the usual defense, "Pfft, christians don't really believe that Jesus was a short analytical magical zombie philosopher."
I honestly don't understand WHY people think that calling Jesus a 'zombie' is incorrect. Is it because he never feasted on brains? Well, a zombie doesn't have to feast on brains to be a zombie. By 'zombie' it's simply meant that Jesus had been dead, and came back to life.
Atheism kills? Jusy because Stalin was an atheist, doesn't necessarily mean atheism kills. You could just as just as easily argue that Christianity kills, with the example of Hitler.
P.S. If he were trying to be logical, he would indeed be guilty of the logical fallacy that you claim he is (which, by the way, you utterly butchered explaining). The thing is, he's not, he's trying to point out how amusing the bible is to him, and in this he's done a brilliant job. And nice job sticking the "Stalin was an atheist" bit in there without any explanation *why* it's such a terrible argument. It's almost as if you want people to see it and think "Oh, yeah, that's right !!"
All you've shown is your own interpretation of the song. Of course there's artistic license, but to say I'm human is accurate regardless of other qualities I possess. The only one who can say what his song means is Tim. Not you. And if Tim were going for "complete identification" the song would just have to be longer, and include a bunch more highly unlikely "supernatural" abilities. The song is farcical, he's laughing at what's in the bible. The bible is farcical, and worth laughing at.
The song is farcical that much is absolutely for sure. Well, if Minchin is laughing at Christians through this song then he's not laughing at Christians. What he's laughing at are his own misconceptions of what Christians believe. He's laughing at a bunch of straw men. But I doubt he's doing that because that would just be stupid. So I think you're making him look more stupid than you ought.
@TheCartesianTheist I think you're right, Tim is a brilliant song writer. This makes it far more likely he said exactly what he meant to say. What he's laughing at is his interpretation of the bible, which he's done in a way you don't agree with, IE, literally. What he's sung about is what the bible actually says. If you don't like what the bible says, then get a different book.
"What he's sung about is what the bible actually says."
No he has not. He is doing what you said in the sentence before! He's "laughing at is his interpretation of the bible". I would qualify 'interpretation' by prefacing it with 'ridiculous' though. Atheists sure hate it that Stalin was one don't they? Damn and damn!! ;)
He is making fun of Jesus and he(Minchin) is a staunch atheist.He is also a very smart guy.If you sat down and asked for a non humorous ontological argument you would get a very different set of ideas indeed,one that would be much harder to dismiss.
You're cool, CatresianTheist. I love Tim Minchin and this video is absolutely great :) I'm an atheist and I agree. It's comedy. It has hints of genuine emotion exaggerated with sarcasm and funny analagies. That's why it's hailarious :D
Is there a GOOD reason why the first comment to this video is "WTF?"
serenoodio 1 day ago
@serenoodio
Probably not!
TheCartesianTheist 1 day ago
What.A.Stupid.Argument. Tim Minchin only EVER told us his opinion, no matter how individuals will respond. THAT is worthy of some respect. After all, isn't that what you are doing with this "video"?As an atheist (yes, I can hear you sigh), I can only applaud a man who can express his true emotion towards a particular subject.Are you afraid that people's opinions may differ from yours? Does it scare you? Or is it a case that I (nor T.M.) do not conform with the masses? Worrying... EACHTOTHEIROWN!
CraigMark1985 2 days ago
@CraigMark1985
You appear more worried than I am ironically! I am simply pointing out to some atheists that some of them are taking Minchin far too seriously by implying he's constructing some grand philosophical argument against Christianity when clearly he's not. That's all. No tears - no tantrums. You appear afraid that I might have a differing opinion to yours!!
TheCartesianTheist 1 day ago
I think he is making a serious point. Not in his analogies but by highlighting the ridiculous qualities Christians believe Jesus has/had. The comparisons are just for comic effect.
Petekh502 4 days ago
@Petekh502
How can he be making serious points about the "ridiculous qualities Christians believe" if his analogies are disanalogous??? Are you people that thick?!
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist Ok, I'll repeat...the analogies are irrelevant!! They are just a comedic device. The point remains with or without them. He calls Jesus a komodo dragon and a hovercraft, obviously they're not meant to be taken seriously as analogies. But the point is that actually believing Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, rose from the dead etc is ridiculous.
Petekh502 4 days ago
@Petekh502
You said first:
"I think he is making a serious point."
Then second post you said:
"I'll repeat...the analogies are irrelevant!!"
BUT the analogies are ALL HE'S SAYING!!! "...believing Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, rose from the dead etc is ridiculous."
That's a lovely ASSERTION but you have failed to demosntrate how any of those things are "ridiculous" other than via ridicule [not a well accepted intellectual tool].
TheCartesianTheist 3 days ago
I seriously think you've misunderstood the whole idea of satire. Satire does exist to make legitimate points, and Minchin's here is that the whole notion of Jesus as a figure who did magic tricks, rose from the dead, was born of a virgin, etc. is silly, and he does so through juxtaposition with modern ideas that we find absurd. It's done for rhetorical effect, not philosophical argument, although it is possible to make philosophical arguments to similar effect.
brodiness84 5 days ago
@brodiness84
If you are suggesting that Minchin is trying to make any serious criticisms of Christianity then you are making both yourself and him look very silly. The supposed "juxtapositions" are category errors at best and made up at worst. You've got a very weak argument against Christianity if this is the backbone of your case!
TheCartesianTheist 5 days ago
Sorry, but I think you don't get the point of this song at all. I understand, that for a believer, it could be hard. For me, this song is absolutely brilliant way how to show christians, that their beliefs are ridiculous. Point is that if Jesus was a real historical person, he was just great thinker, charming and I don't know what else, but the rest of the fairy tale was evolved later from gossips and some of the stuff were made up by church later on.
Milborg1 6 days ago
@Milborg1
On the contrary. I feel sorry for atheists who have to use such humour and category errors on order to make themselves feel better about their rejection of theism. Instead of engaging in serious debate they resort to making up their own myths - like the ones you finish with. The accounts of Jesus from the NT are first century. If it was made up it was made up from the very beginning and did not evolve later. The manuscript evidence alone shows this.
TheCartesianTheist 6 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Ok, you obviously don't know much about how the bible was copied before the printing.
1. The original text is not known
2. There are diferences in various versions made in different times or places.
Try to read for example this book: "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why".
And if you demand a serious debate about religion, I recommend: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. There's a lot of serious arguments to think about. :)
Milborg1 6 days ago
@Milborg1
Obviously I knoew a heck of a lot more about it than you do since I've done some textual criticism in my formal education.
1. That assertion of yours is absolutely pathetic. Unlike you I'll give a reason! The NT has more manuscript evidence for cross referencing than all the Greek philosophers put together! 5000+. Then there are the whole codexes such as Sinaitucus and Vaticanus. There's so much mss evidence, in fact, that your contention is obscurantist.
TheCartesianTheist 6 days ago
@Milborg1
2. You offer me Ehrman? He's been more than replied to. In fact, his mentor at Princeton, the legendary NT scholar Bruce Metzger had already defeated most of Ehrman's arguments before Ehrman even put pen to paper. Try reading his 'The Text of the NT' - which is considered a classic in the field of study. Ehrman also got soundly refuted by Dr Peter Williams on the 'Unbelievable' radio show in debate with him a few months back. It's on itunes. For now check this:
v=Q9zllyFvQ5k
TheCartesianTheist 6 days ago
@Milborg1
"And if you demand a serious debate about religion, I recommend: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins."
Serious??? You want me to read a book on theology written by a biologist? I'm sorry but I have read that book and could tell you about a plethora of mistakes he's made in there. He doesn't even get Richard Swinburne's profession correct!! I already have a video demonstrating how he got Aquinas wrong in that book. Loads of people have destroyed that popularist tripe!
TheCartesianTheist 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCartesianTheist
"You want me to read a book on theology written by a biologist?" Yes, because he is right. Or you do believe in everything what's written in the Bible? That we come from Adam and Eve? Eden and talking snake? Really? Science and biology especially has so much evidence about evolution that you SHOULD listen. Btw. I don't know about any "destructions of that popularist tripe", but I have seen many failed attempts instead.
Milborg1 6 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Not sure where you got that info, but the gospels are not first century. Evidence shows them to be much later. There are arguments that they are accurate transcriptions from the oral tradition that was first century, but there are no manuscripts that can be traced back that far. Further, if you're going to argue that we should accept them because they are first century, then you need to accept the gnostic gospels, which date back just as far.
slgilley 6 days ago
@slgilley
The mss evidence goes right back to the beginning of the second century now which demonstrates that they had to be first century documents due to their wide distribution and copies of them found in the second century. Even liberal dates now rarely go later than the end of the first century for this reason. The evidence os simply too good. Textual attestation for the gnostic gospels is not as good either!
TheCartesianTheist 6 days ago
@slgilley
"...the amount of evidence for the text of the NT, whether derived from mss, early versions, or patristic quotations, is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions."
Bruce Metzger
TheCartesianTheist 6 days ago
@slgilley
In order to cast any serious doubt on the authenticity of the text of the NT the evidence of the proto-Alexandrian textual tradition would have to be seriously damaged. However the dating for them is very well agreed as second century and the geography such that it pushes the date of the originals back many more years. p45, p46, p66, p75, aleph, B, the Sahidic, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and other Pauline papri would need to be redated radically. Can you do that?
TheCartesianTheist 6 days ago
"The resurrection of Jesus should not be taken out of the worldview context it exists in."
The same could be said for the resurrection of the tooth fairy.
nsofast 6 days ago
@nsofast
There is no such worldview for the tooth fairy I'm afraid to tell you.
Also the McGrews have answered and replied to all claimed "rebuttals". You do actually know that finding an article which claims to refute a case doesn't mean it's actually done it don't you? If only refuting people were that easy!!
TheCartesianTheist 6 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist I am sorry to inform you that many worldviews are incorrect.
Reading both sides of the McGrews paper, I have to say the were consistently bested by the debunker.I have no need to read any further anymore than if their paper were reviewing the tooth fairy.The logic was deeply flawed and would not have passed as a first semester term paper.
nsofast 6 days ago
@nsofast
Well I just find it funny that you don't bring up any specifics at all but just assert that you feel they were debunked. You give not one example of the logic being "deeply flawed" at all. I would have thought you could have given me one example of such at least?
My point has always been, in any case, that a worldview stands on many divergent forms of evidence and they never stand or fall on one particular issue. It is the cumilative case for theism which makes it strong.
TheCartesianTheist 6 days ago
He is not making fun Jesus, he is making fun of people who believe things like people rising from the dead.He is just pointing out how silly Christianity is.The Zombie joke is my favorite. Its funny and it just points out how couching the same idea in different terms points out how absurd the actual idea of resurrection is.
Funny and effective.
A tour de force by Minchin.
nsofast 1 week ago
@nsofast
Resurrection and zombies are not analogous! You atheists really do like proving you are dumb!!
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist They are analogous in many ways, especially in that they are both fictitious.There is clearly enough overlap to draw an analogy.
nsofast 1 week ago
@nsofast
ROFL - You have merely assumed and asserted that the resurrection of Jesus was ficticious! WOW - what an argument!
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist Occam's razor, the actual resurrection of Jesus vs made up story about resurrection are far from equiprobable .I have the high ground here, I am not making a supernatural claim. Easy for my to say its fictitious.
nsofast 1 week ago
@nsofast
Nice misuse of Occam's Razor. The resurrection of Jesus should not be taken out of the worldview context it exists in. And the claim of naturalism to this event you make should not be taken out of context with, which will undoubtably become for you, metaphysical naturalism. Therefore you don't have the high ground. You have an assumption [naturalism] which has a plethora of serious philosophical problems which have been levelled against it.
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist In the absence of reasonable and sufficient evidence, the null hypothesis is the correct assumption.
Zombies: fictitious story about entity that, although dead, becomes "un-dead" during a story exposition.
Jesus: probably fictitiious story about entity that, dead for a day and a half or so, becomes "un-dead" during a story exposition.
Seriously, you don't see any similarity (which was the *JOKE* Minchin was making, not a formal equivocation)???
RationalSkeptic 1 week ago
@RationalSkeptic
First, there is not an "absence of reasonable and sufficient evidence". Second, it's the nature of the definition of zombie which makes it an insufficient comparison with Christian resurrection which makes it a laughable comparison. The case for the resurrection of Jesus is strong [see the probablistic case outlined by Timothy and Lydia McGrew for example] and is wedded to a stronger intellectual position than metaphysical naturalism [viz. theism].
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist "The case for the resurrection of Jesus is strong"
That statement is complete bollocks.I found the paper you are referring to and loved it. I find it so entertaining when Christians use syllogistic gymnastics to try to prove their point.In any case the paper was hardly robust.You would have to start as a believer to be convinced by it. I found a nice debunking. You can find it by googling "My Rebuttal to the McGrews - Rewritten".
nsofast 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCartesianTheist "First, there is not an "absence of reasonable and sufficient evidence". " --> Yeah, I remember when I used to believe that. Then I spent some time and thought and realized there is much, much more evidence for the existence of Santa Clause. In fact, when I was 9, a friend had personal experience and testimony of S.C. visiting, while both her parents were there with her, secretly watching S.C. deliver gifts. So, is that reasonable and sufficient evidence for Santa?
RationalSkeptic 6 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist "which makes it a laughable comparison."
OK, finally! You DO get it! it's a joke. A "laughable comparison".
So why did you make this long video, pretending to not understand that TM was making a "laughable comparison"? Why didn't you just laugh at the comparison?
RationalSkeptic 6 days ago
@RationalSkeptic
Duh! That's what I ahve been saying all along! It's nothing more than a joke in which Minchin is making NO serious criticisms of Christianity at all. THat's why I said I don't understand why it was cut from the show and how I understand how it can be funny. The purpose of the video is to say to atheists who take him as making a serious point that it is THEY who are missing the fact that this is just humour and he's making no serious point!
TheCartesianTheist 6 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist No - he is laughing at your presumption that an ancient myth is still being taken even remotely seriously in the modern world...
Socracea 4 days ago
@Socracea
It's not a "presumption". Perhaps you're not aware but there are academics in the highest posts in the world's finest universities who are Christians. Clearly the presumption is all yours mate!
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist In fact I am aware that there are intelligent people (a slight percentile) in academia who suspend disbelief for drivel-laden superstition. Not many but some. Then again, there are some intellectuals who also wear women's clothing and sell their bodies for sex as fun - it doesn't make it right or acceptable. Exceptions are to every rule.
Socracea 4 days ago
@Socracea
Oh there's a good few more than you would know that's for sure! It would make you uncomfortable to find out. There has been a revival of theism in academic philosophy in the last twenty years. But, unlike you, I'm not using the figures to make some point whereas you are. Now, whose the more stupid? The person using an ad populum fallacy or the person not? Would you like me to translate that for you? Clearly you were off school the day they taught logic.
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist Now you have me outwardly laughing. I am unsure which country you are referring to, but in the USA at least, 93% of the National Academy of Science is atheist. I also did not quote any static figures, so you are building a fake straw man in your unsupportable argument. As for logic - I could post my credentials, but that would simply be boasting. I challenge you to show me some actual logic, then we can discuss.
Socracea 4 days ago
@Socracea
But science is not the academic study of God's existence!! That's like surveying scientists to decide whether there are, in their opinion, any substantive synthetic a priori truths!! You don't ask a scientist that question. You ask philosophers - that's their field of study. Philosophy of religion is the academic subject which studies the evidence for the existence of God - not science!! So you have gone to the wrong subject mate. Yet more evidence that you're a noob to this
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist No, actually you are the 'noob at this' (nice phraseology). Science determines whether something exists or does not. I am done here, as you are not only delusional, but like to fake that you have any concept of science or academia... lol
I am actually sad that I wasted any time posting to your ignorant video.
Socracea 4 days ago
@Socracea
Science does not dtermine whether objective truth exists. It does not determine whether any metaphysical realities exist. It does not determine whether anything has value or whether anything can be right or wrong. It does not determine a whole range of things! Of course you're done here. Despite your sad little rant you have no argument and that's why you're leaving. I am sad you posted here too. Please spend some time reading up on the subject instead of spreading ignorance
TheCartesianTheist 3 days ago
@Socracea
Go ahead and post your credentials. It won't scare me in the slightest I assure you. You are the one right now flirting with an ad populum as your ONLY reason to justify mocking theism. That alone tells me your credentials are not in logic or philosophy and it seems very unlikely they're in theology either given your overconfidence. So you're probably another scientist just gagging to demonstrate how you don't know the first damn thing about philosophy. Go for it.
TheCartesianTheist 4 days ago
So are you saying that the use of analogy is fundamentally flawed, and therefore the argument that TM is presenting is somehow invalid? Ridiculous. The bible is full of analogies and metaphors which it uses to convey a message. I have no problem with that, despite the fact that I have a problem with the bible. It is not Tim's use of analogy that attracts people to this song - they like this song because he uses analogy and metaphor in such a clever way in order to ridicule Christianity!
psychedelicdreamer 1 week ago
@psychedelicdreamer
No. I am saying the analogy is false and therefore Tim cannot possibly be offering us any kind of argument since I don't believe he's that stupid! How many times am I going to have to explain that to atheists on here? Ad infinitum it appears!!
If he really is using false analogies to "ridicule Christianity" then that shows how desperate and how utterly stupid atheists have become of late. David Hume would be ashamed!
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist the songs are very much a critique of Christianity in a satirical way. He isnt so much suggesting that because he rose from the dead, that he is just like the zombies of now, hes pointing out that while zombies are regarded has stupid fiction, and in some Christian groups the work of Satan, Jesus having risen from the dead is the definition of a zombie
crouchforrest 1 week ago
@crouchforrest
"...Jesus having risen from the dead is the definition of a zombie"
You see - you're one of them. You're taking Minchin too seriously. There's no way he's so stupid as to be making anything more than comedy here. if you think he's even making a semi-serious point then you are claiming he's a complete noob. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is not the definition of a zombie - look the definition of the latter up!
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
I think you comletely missed the point of this song in your 'analyzing' of it. Tim sings not against religion and Jesus per say, but brings some of Jesus' characteristics into the world of today, using examples. It just so happens that these examples are made to make Jesus look completely unbelieveable and unrealistic.
Also, you edited out the bit where he calls himself Jesus. Well, there's more proof Tim is the son of God than the one in the Bible.
olicantedit 1 week ago
@olicantedit
No you miss the point. I am saying it's a mistake to analyse it at all. the minute you do you see there cannot be ANY serious point being made. If there really is some serious point being made [as you suggest] then Tim becomes an idiot and I don't believe he is - just a great comedien.
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
dissecting humor is like dissecting a frog, few are interested in it and the frog dies of it..
Hariukin 1 week ago
@Hariukin
That is the point I'm trying to make to the atheist community who are trying to make Minchin into an atheist preacher!
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist Firstly, I've never seen Minchin being treated as some highly sophisticated atheist preacher.
Secondly, definition of zombie is "a dead person who is believed to have been brought back to life by magic"
Now tell me. What exactly happened to Jesus? Or this other fella Lasarus?
kutaplex 1 week ago
@kutaplex
For someone trying to talk up his chances you sure aren't doing yourself any favours. Up above I put three of the most used online dictionary definitions of 'zombie'. Notice how none of them come anywhere near to close to the Christian concept of bodily resurrection. Therefore the game you're playing [of guilt by linguistic association] is making you look like you never even made it to first year but dropped out sometime in your early teens.
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist Yeah. Especially since I never studied philosophy. Well. Keep praying. But be careful. If god starts talking back to you, you will be put in mental hospital. Unless some older dude from Vatican decides otherwise.
kutaplex 1 week ago
@kutaplex
Hahaha. Notice how you had no comeback to the points. According to yourself you just lost to a first year philosophy student. Ouch. ;)
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
Comment removed
ferkinskin 1 week ago
Comment removed
ferkinskin 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist
I think you might have a logical fallacy. Just because something is meant to be funny and humorous, doesn't mean it doesn't also say something. If I make fun of a pedophile using a joke, yes it's suppose to be funny, no I don't think it's right. Minchin is making fun of a bronze age myth that people stupidly hold today with a joke medium. Actually, if you look at all of his work, that's a common theme.
samuelphillippi 1 week ago
@samuelphillippi
Oh dear. It was aimed at the atheist audience who keep suggesting that Minchin has made some great intellectual critique of Christianity with this piece of comedy. Thereby making themselves look the fool. Okay? You can breath again now okay? Phew!
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
if you bothered to read Tim's blog post that came with the video you would see that he was comparing the tricks/abilities that Jesus had to modern day analogy's
Also as to your first point about height remains of human beings from when Jesus was apparently walking the earth have shown that people were shorter then they are now so if you compare him to the average size that human beings are now he would be considered short
And yes if some one came back to life I would hit them with a shovel
systemofastefan 1 week ago
@systemofastefan
If you are suggesting that Tim was really trying to make any serious comparative points then I change my mind and will consider him stupid.
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist I am not saying to take him seriously it was comedy after all.
But his critique of Jesus was accurate, funny, well fort out and It was a incredibly smart idea to compare him to modern day memes
systemofastefan 1 week ago
@systemofastefan
Bloody hell! You people cannot even make your minds up how you should interpret him. One minute he's not making any points and it's comedy and the next his comedy is really just a ruse for some hyper-intellectual critique of religion. You guys need to make your minds up because you're making yourselves look like fools. But then mentioning 'memes' may have already blown your cover!! ;)
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist other then the point I was making about height, both my comments were going after the same conclusion only the second was worded better.
And while I understand the point behind the video, You made the same mistake that I did with my first comment, I didn't anticipate how others would read it, nor did I anticipate that I would #£$% up getting my point across.
systemofastefan 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist Cause art can be interpreted in only one way and is never multidimensional. You are such a fool and attention whore. Otherwise you wouldn't make this video response to the song "If I didn't have you"
kutaplex 1 week ago
@kutaplex
Well if you wish to interpret him in such a way that it makes both he and you look like fools then that's completely your choice.
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist Linking this video to "If I didn't have you" makes you a fool too. I guess you are first year philosophy student who recently learned some fancy names?
kutaplex 1 week ago
Comment removed
MrDannythedick 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCartesianTheist Hey dude,please read something about exaggeration,Tim uses it ALOT :)
MrDannythedick 1 week ago
Thumbs down...and get a life...and a sense of humour for that matter. Jesus!! (oops)
ferkinskin 1 week ago
@ferkinskin
That's why this video is here. Exactly for people like yourself who don't understand that some things in comedy should not be taken too seriously! After all that was the point of my video if you even bothered to watch it all the way through?! Duh!!
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist
1) Watched it all the way through...where was the joke?! And more importantly..what exactly was the fucking point? Duh!
2) The underlined seriousness is there though whether you like it or not. He IS making a point..and it ain't a point for christianity. Duh!
3) If you have made your point so well and I'm the idiot..why so many thumbs down..over half man. That's a bad score.
What is it in comedy I am not understanding here exactly? Your vid is garbage.
ferkinskin 1 week ago
Did you just really demonstrate that Tim used a sophism and therefor Jesus was not necessary an actual zombie?
Tim is mocking religion because it's human's history's biggest scam. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. To support a huge claim, one needs to present huge evidence.
Tim entertains those who can think by themselves, using this scam as a theme. Thing is, you can no more prove that Jesus wasn't a zombie as we can disprove God's existence.
nancydiane86 1 week ago
@nancydiane86
Funny how you talk about thinking for yourself when you're full of tried and tested atheist quips yourself?
"To support a huge claim, one needs to present huge evidence."
Well that's a HUGE epistemic claim so where is the huge evidence to support it.
Also there is evidence for the existence of God. And there is a very good case for the resurrection of Jesus whereas there is no such thing for zombies. Sorry.
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
Let me make it simple for you. No atheist thinks of "magical woody allen zombie jesus" as a profound philosophical argument that disproves religion. It is, however, a point used to mock your religion.
czyanization 2 weeks ago 2
@czyanization
How can it be a "point" at all if it's not a "profound philosophical argument"?
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Are you serious?
The point is that quality set 2 and 3 are ridiculous. As ridiculous as magic and zombies.
czyanization 1 week ago
dude, im a christian, and i found it funny, don't take it personally, he's an entertainer, if it's entertaining to people then he's doing his job
jaksaftw 2 weeks ago
@jaksaftw
That was my point!! :(
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
Remember how much Jesus talked about humility? I bring it up because you seem to think you're being very clever and it's just embarrassing.
Lairdesangfroid 2 weeks ago
@Lairdesangfroid
Explain how it's embarrassing and also how thinking one is clever when one is is to lack genuine humility.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist It is embarrassing because you think you are clever. And actually, no, you are not clever. This is because you think you've discovered a set of logical fallacies in a "proof" against your religion. When in fact it is your own mis-categorization (and some of the less intelligent atheists too, no doubt) that led you to believe thus, instead of what it actually is: A mockery of a subset of your beliefs because they are so ridiculous in the modern world.
czyanization 1 week ago
@TheCartesianTheist because you aren't.
Lairdesangfroid 1 week ago
@Lairdesangfroid
Try a complete sentence next time for the sake of clarity.
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
This is just an atheist joking about Jesus and christianity in a song, not a guy writing a philosophy paper..Iighten up!
winterstellar 2 weeks ago
@winterstellar
That was my point!! :(
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
Has Christianity blunted your sense of humor or all together wiped it out?
lobetrotter 2 weeks ago
I am pretty sure the point of the song is to look at the different qualities that jesus had through a modern perspective. If any serious point is to be made here, it's that people thousands of years ago may interpret these qualities as divine, but in a modern context they would not be. Example: "jesus was a great entertainer", doing tricks and sleight-of-hand to impress the ignorant people of eons past may convince people of some divine power or influence, but today we know better.
FearsEdge 2 weeks ago
He's using this fallacy of association to mock the people who do believe in Jesus. He's pointing out how ridiculous it seems, and exaggerating his points purposely to make it clear it's a mockery. It seems like you're the only one who tried to read into it like you did. So congratulations, you missed the point entirely.
J3urkasaur 3 weeks ago
@J3urkasaur
So you think he's that stupid that he'd descend to mocking people whilst using a logical fallacy? Maybe he was but I'm trying to give a kinder interpretation to let him off the hook.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist That's not at all what he's saying. I don't see where you're getting the notion he's stupid. He's pointing out what he believes to be the stupidity of others. He's being sarcastic, and that doesn't make him stupid.
J3urkasaur 3 weeks ago
@J3urkasaur
Did you even make it to the end of my video??? My answer is "No - he's NOT that stupid!!!" The video is criticising atheists who posted on the thread under the original video that Minchin was making some fantastic critique of Christianity in his parody and he's not.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist But you're proposing that if my argument is right (which it is) then he is stupid, which is un-true. And yes, I did watch until the end. It's quite obvious it's not a literal critique of the idea of Christianity, but the idea that it is absurd it meant to be taken seriously. What I'm trying to say you didn't need to make a video like this to prove such an obvious point.
J3urkasaur 3 weeks ago
@J3urkasaur
I'm not "presupposing" it. I'm arguing it. I'm giving reasons for it. If you and/or Minchin are really arguing that it's absurd to believe p because it's absurd to believe q then you have a serious logical problem going on [and many atheists are and therefore do]. Disanalogies make for good jokes but they do not make for good critiques.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Well then what are you supposing? That he really believes in Christianity? That is clearly not true, but it is the only other option.
J3urkasaur 3 weeks ago
@J3urkasaur
Of course it's not the only other option!! There are hundreds of other options. Here's just one. That Minchin is an atheist and that he loves making fun of religion but he knows he's not really making any serious points when he does so.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Speaking on the level of the individual points he's making in this video, correct. That's really fucking obvious, as I've pointed out before. But he IS serious in his point that religion isn't logical. I'm through commenting on this video, because we're becoming completely repetitive.
J3urkasaur 3 weeks ago
@J3urkasaur
Well it's not obvious at all to a lot of atheists who, on his threads, say he's making some great theological point when clearly he's not!
Also you now sound like one of them yourself by saying that on the "individual points" he's not making a serious point but that overall he's making the point that religion isn't logical? How can you be making that point when all your specific points are disanalogous?! That's not logical in the slightest.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ferkinskin 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCartesianTheist
I would entirely disagree by the way. If you have watched any amount of Minchin then you will know it is a great bone of contention of his and he is quite aware that there is a serious point to be made when it comes to faiths because of the repercussions that faiths can and do have for the world. It is certainly not just humour. He is using humour to transport ideas and vice versa. I fear it is you who has no understanding of humour and satire.
ferkinskin 1 week ago
Also "Atheism kills"? Hitler was a vegetarian. so by your logic being a vegetarian kills people?
Sometimes religious people shit me -.-
StevenLovesMetal 3 weeks ago
@StevenLovesMetal
So when Stalin burned down churches and killed Christians it had nothing to do with the fact that he wanted an atheistic society rid of religion? Sometimes atheists annoy me!
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist The you worded it made it sound as though just being an atheist kills people, also whether he was an atheist or not Stalin most likely would have killed anyway, some people cant help stuff like that they just get urges and will find just about any reason to justify it
StevenLovesMetal 3 weeks ago
@StevenLovesMetal
Absolute rubbish!! The slide before the Stalin one made it clear that this would be a fallacy of association therefore I'm MOCKING anyone who would use that argument!! Please pause and read the slide immediately prior to the Stalin syllogism and you will see that we're actually in AGREEMENT!! ;)
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist the way you worded it**
StevenLovesMetal 3 weeks ago
Dude its meant to be funny not trying to describe actual events, i agree with lots of things Tim minchin says, I'm an atheist too. and studies have shown that people were alot shorter 2000 years ago
StevenLovesMetal 3 weeks ago
You are soooooo annoying. Consider your troll a success.
ajrnagy100 3 weeks ago 2
@ajrnagy100
The solution is a simple one. Don't watch my videos or write on my threads!! I mean - I've not come anywhere near you at all and yet I'm the troll?? Projecting much? ;)
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
The title shows how butthurt you are. If you want to see minchins logical reasoning watch Storm - Tim Minchin.
DavidSarge 3 weeks ago
@DavidSarge
"...Minchin's logical reasoning..."
How can you put those three words in the same sentence?!
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist With a keyboard and a brain.
DavidSarge 3 weeks ago
@DavidSarge
Well let's hear this oh-so-wonderful argument of Minchin's then!
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Arguing and reasoning with logic are two different things, this is why you fail. As i said, watch the video storm and you will see Tims Opinions on The supernatural and other things in the form of a 9 minute beat poem.
DavidSarge 3 weeks ago
@DavidSarge
Well thanks for wasting 9 minutes of my life I won't get back. Minchin sets himself up against some dipsy, anti-science spiritualist in a poem and you think he's onto something? Has Minchin not read enough to know that the controversy hypothesis has been long overthrown? Does he not know that without the likes of theists such as Descartes it's likely modern optics would be 200 years behind itself? Look how many Christians were great inventors!
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist The magical land of Oz called; they want their straw man back.
brodiness84 5 days ago
@DavidSarge
But then Minchin does something even worse. He pretends there's virtually no philosophy in his worldview. Only what is scientific can be true. But this won't work as he demonstrates, because he concludes there is truth! He claims that he knows he is "insignificant" - pray tell when did science get to teach values? So whilst I take my hat off to a good poet I moan at yet another New Atheist having a go at philosophy!!
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Ok, let me put this as simply as I can. People like you, are the reason people like me will live a stressful life. People like you are what are holding the world back from advancing, if you can not get it through your thick fucking head that minchin is simply making the point that in regards to the sheer size of the world and the amount of people in it he is a tiny piece of carpet, you must be a complete utter retard!Values are taught by obvservation, nub.
DavidSarge 3 weeks ago
@DavidSarge
Wow. Your misrepresentation of science as if it's some atheist enterprise is quite shocking. Did you not know how many theists have made huge contributions to science and technology just in the last two hundred years? Would you like me to name some for you? The list is very long and distinguished. And getting as angry as you are is only making your view look all the more irrational and emotive. PS. there is such a thing as the 'controversy hypothesis'. Google it mate.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist You're just demonstrating that it's possible for theists to do science, which is of course true because one can hold to methodological naturalism (a requirement for doing science) without holding to ontological naturalism. That information is hardly useful at all as to whether religion is either helpful or a hindrance to science, and a cursory study of the history of religious attitudes toward science will help disabuse you of the notion that science owes theism anything.
brodiness84 5 days ago
@TheCartesianTheist And stop replying, you keep twisting whatever you read/see in your head to form the most STUPID things i have ever read on youtube, this is NOT about "The controversy hypothesis" which doesn't fucking exist, it's not about his apparent "lack of philosophy" it's about you being a stupid butthurt christian that can't accept the fact that you've been lied to. Grow the fuck up and realise there aint god, and maybe you'll live for yourself now, not noone after
DavidSarge 3 weeks ago
@DavidSarge
The atheist philosopher David Hume was the one who famously raised the point that you cannot get values from facts and an 'ought' from an 'is' and professional atheist philosophers have, on the whole, continued to agree with him up to today. Therefore the very academics from your perspective disagree with you on that one. Empirical science does not give us values I'm afraid to tell you.
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist "Insignificant" is an observation in relation to the immense scope of the universe and the immensely limited scope of people, so yes, it's based in science.
brodiness84 5 days ago
you just totally ruined the song for me. buzzkill.
covjor 4 weeks ago
The fact that you are making a video on why we shouldn't take tim minchin seriously....shows that you take him seriously.
At the same time, no atheist takes it seriously, as it is comedy, and we understand what comedy is. We simply think minchin is clever and funny, but not one of us would use these arguments in an actual theological debate, jesus!
brianlover926 1 month ago
@brianlover926
"The fact that you are making a video on why we shouldn't take tim minchin seriously....shows that you take him seriously."
That's faulty thinking. As I stated, I can make the video since I take seriously the fact that many atheists are taking him too seriously and this is the purpose of the video. Not so much MInchin but the unthinking Minchinites. And if you think none of them do then just read ten pages of comments under his videos.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
The whole video screams "trying too hard"
acronus 1 month ago
@acronus
Your comment screams "should have tried harder!" ;)
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist
I "should have tried harder" to....what exactly? Show that this video is kinda pointless?
All Tim did was compare some traits of Jesus to things and people we can relate to today. Using hyperboles is what makes the song funny.
Way to suck the fun out it.
acronus 1 month ago
Obviously this video producer has not seen much of Tim Minchin. Making fun of creationist is part of every show he does. I guess in a christians defense thats not a very hard thing to do.
scottclements78 1 month ago
I wonder what gave the joke away...? errr... the song is called Woody Allen Jesus- this is funny. All he is doing is making a light hearted comparison between things in the bible and modern day things we can relate to. Its just funny, nothing else. No-one was meant to take it too seriously, tim certainly didn't while writing it
tomtom21194 1 month ago
Whether some Jesus existed or not, doesn't change the fact that there was absolutely nothing special about him or her and that he had nothing original or unique to say that millions of people before him in hundreds of cultures throughout the world had said earlier, and there is ZERO proof that he was "divine".
I am proudly and openly an atheist!
mphello 1 month ago
Woody Allen Jesus? What? Kinda like saying Ricky Gervais Krishna. ?
hippo11222 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheCartesianTheist
@hippo11222
"Kinda like saying Ricky Gervais Krishna. ?"
Hahahaha. Although there is a comparison with that one since they both had a bit of a belly!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
How can atheists take him literally when they don't believe any of the things the bible says about Jesus, most don't even believe there was such a person, let alone that he was the son of god and god?
By the way I'm not an atheist, I really don't label myself, but I did find a nice word I like to use to describe my views on the subject it's called IRRELIGIOUS
D1G17ALTR1PP3R 1 month ago
@D1G17ALTR1PP3R
Well most atheists may not believe there was an actual person called Jesus but most historians of antiquity do so they are the ones looking stupid on that front not Christians!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
Without picking a fight with any side, I'd just like to explain the short thing. Scholars, both secular and religious have come to a consensus on the physique of Jesus, it's pretty clear from all available records that Jesus was an average looking Palestinian, physiologically speaking. The average male today is taller than the average male at the time of Christ. That's all that means.
Sairin13 1 month ago
TIm Minchin is brilliant AND hilarious!
MsUntamedshrew 1 month ago
@LogicalStatements2
Shooting you is not an option ethically for me. Neither do I feel like shooting you either. Please just watch a video before trashing it in the comments section please?! Thanks.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@LogicalStatements2
Clearly you didn't watch it to the end and if you did you didn't bother reading my comments properly! Facepalm!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
Why're people always trying to convert us, or tell us what to think... #AthiestWoes
MattTheProducer 1 month ago
@EnlightenedReader "I'm saying if zombies were real, they'd occur naturally" Ok, that's nonsense. In popular media, SOMETIMES they're a result of things like 'diseases' and whatnot, however, they're ALSO sometimes a result of supernatural causations.
BigLundi 1 month ago
@EnlightenedReader ...I'm sorry, when did zombies become a naturally occurring thing?
BigLundi 1 month ago
@EnlightenedReader
And they don't have resurrection bodies!!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
I checked. There isn't a God. Live with it (but not an everlasting life. Sorry).
SimplyPaul 1 month ago
@SimplyPaul
On the list of fallacies - that one is called the fallacy of assertion.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist Prove it ><
SimplyPaul 1 month ago
@SimplyPaul
Doctrinally speaking. Duh!!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@SimplyPaul depends on the definition of "god" , the sun as a sun god that nourishes the earth dose exist , the christian imaginary friend exists as a form of an unhealthy neural pathway, the flying spaghetti monster and the biblical jehova don't. it all depends on your definition of the elusive word "god".
like your straight forwardness, have a grate day.
tomerlivechen 1 month ago
Ah the usual defense, "Pfft, christians don't really believe that Jesus was a short analytical magical zombie philosopher."
I honestly don't understand WHY people think that calling Jesus a 'zombie' is incorrect. Is it because he never feasted on brains? Well, a zombie doesn't have to feast on brains to be a zombie. By 'zombie' it's simply meant that Jesus had been dead, and came back to life.
...Or don't you believe that happened?
BigLundi 1 month ago
Atheism kills? Jusy because Stalin was an atheist, doesn't necessarily mean atheism kills. You could just as just as easily argue that Christianity kills, with the example of Hitler.
dominic2255 1 month ago
@dominic2255
Watch again and see what I ACTUALLY said about that syllogism. I actually point out it does NOT work.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
P.S. If he were trying to be logical, he would indeed be guilty of the logical fallacy that you claim he is (which, by the way, you utterly butchered explaining). The thing is, he's not, he's trying to point out how amusing the bible is to him, and in this he's done a brilliant job. And nice job sticking the "Stalin was an atheist" bit in there without any explanation *why* it's such a terrible argument. It's almost as if you want people to see it and think "Oh, yeah, that's right !!"
TheWeizOne 1 month ago
All you've shown is your own interpretation of the song. Of course there's artistic license, but to say I'm human is accurate regardless of other qualities I possess. The only one who can say what his song means is Tim. Not you. And if Tim were going for "complete identification" the song would just have to be longer, and include a bunch more highly unlikely "supernatural" abilities. The song is farcical, he's laughing at what's in the bible. The bible is farcical, and worth laughing at.
TheWeizOne 2 months ago
@TheWeizOne
The song is farcical that much is absolutely for sure. Well, if Minchin is laughing at Christians through this song then he's not laughing at Christians. What he's laughing at are his own misconceptions of what Christians believe. He's laughing at a bunch of straw men. But I doubt he's doing that because that would just be stupid. So I think you're making him look more stupid than you ought.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist I think you're right, Tim is a brilliant song writer. This makes it far more likely he said exactly what he meant to say. What he's laughing at is his interpretation of the bible, which he's done in a way you don't agree with, IE, literally. What he's sung about is what the bible actually says. If you don't like what the bible says, then get a different book.
TheWeizOne 1 month ago
@TheWeizOne
"What he's sung about is what the bible actually says."
No he has not. He is doing what you said in the sentence before! He's "laughing at is his interpretation of the bible". I would qualify 'interpretation' by prefacing it with 'ridiculous' though. Atheists sure hate it that Stalin was one don't they? Damn and damn!! ;)
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
I'm a Christian, and even I can appreciate some of Minchin's songs... I thought "Prejudice" was really clever!
stallion4life 2 months ago
He is making fun of Jesus and he(Minchin) is a staunch atheist.He is also a very smart guy.If you sat down and asked for a non humorous ontological argument you would get a very different set of ideas indeed,one that would be much harder to dismiss.
nsofast 2 months ago
You're cool, CatresianTheist. I love Tim Minchin and this video is absolutely great :) I'm an atheist and I agree. It's comedy. It has hints of genuine emotion exaggerated with sarcasm and funny analagies. That's why it's hailarious :D
Natalicious132 2 months ago