Atheist Church 8/30/2009 The Case Against Christ Part II

Part 1 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrsBMrJ-_OY




http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/
(Part 2 of 2) Matt McCormick joins us for a discussion of the case for Jesus being magic versus the case for the witches of Salem being actual witches from his presentation The Case Against Christ

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• atheist church
• Professor Matt McCormick
• The Case Against Christ
• atheism
• christianity
• salem witch trial

[joedoe4]

Was Jesus a Real Guy ? it is very important to take that on. Yet you as a philosopher bypass it ? I'm sorry, but the way you present this is not even close to serious. I hope you do not impress innocent people with you fallacies. You might mean well but you need to organize your thoughts beyond what you hope

[klfly]

@joedoe4 It is an important question. There are many important questions. He wasn't addressing that question in this particular set of videos. He explains that in part I.

[ksscott10]

I can't tell if these guys are serious or being tongue-in-cheek. Salem witch trials had great evidence of witches yet the community was mistaken. Therefore since there was less reliable evidence (by non-believer standards) the disciples and all Christianity is mistaken. This is critical thinking?

[klfly]

@ksscott10 What he is saying is that we're not applying the same scrutiny to the gospel that we'd apply to any other historical record and when you do apply this scrutiny it doesn't hold up. It is the phrase "by non-believer standards" that tells me you're not applying critical thinking. I look at everything with the same standard and belief, when it happens, is a result of applying those standards.

[cheddarpuff]

The point is that you don't WANT to believe and that is your choice which you are free to make.

About that "sketchy" evidence of Jesus' resurrection - what do you think made people of his own time become such strong believers in his divinity that they suffered torture and death rather than renouncing their belief? That wasn't 2000 years later, that was less than 100 years after Jesus' death.

But it's really not about evidence and you know it.

[klfly]

@cheddarpuff I don't believe in things based on what I want or don't want to believe. I'd love to not believe in cancer or Aids or Wayans Brothers movies. I believe based on reason.

[ndzoko]

The apparent lack of interest in religious nonsense( judging from the number of visitors on this webside) is a sign that we are moving in the right direction.

[TheMateus01]

Have you read the book "I don't have enough faith to be an athiest" because some of your arguments according to that reference are completely wrong. For example the amount of intact manuscripts we have. Also the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by two of the people that followed Jesus during his entire ministry......no passed down information there.

[truwired]

But for the grace of God, there go I.

[drgodsauce]

For l0lz I've been reading Strobel's book 'The Case For Christ'

What do you think of writing a book that takes on the same "skeptical journey" from the perspective of proving the accuracy of the Salem court's decisions?

[cheddarpuff]

@boricuamm707 you say that all people who believe in jesus as the son of god would have to equally believe in all other persons claiming to be the son of god and so you are either not understanding or deliberately ignoring the fundamental differences btw. the jesus from the bible and any crazy loon who wants to be god. you are mocking faith by equating it with irrational belief in lunatics. and that is low quality debating or rather low quality thinking.

[boricuamm707]

@cheddarpuff Haha how is that low quality? You just dont know how to answer it

Congratulations on believing in a Puerto Rican Jesus.