Jesus is still dead!!! Coherence, Skeptics, and Epilepsy

This is a response to LogosApologia's video "Resurrection Challenge: Reply to CrazyPills2" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB_rrhxuo6A&feature=watch_response

The main criticism offered by LogosApologia to my original video was that my argument was not coherent. Specifically my argument didn't address the conversions of James and Paul. Ask and ye shall receive.

Sources include:
"St Paul and temporal lobe epilepsy," D LANDSBOROUGH, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 1987;50:659-664

Category:

Education

Tags:

• logosapologia
• resurrection
• challenge
• jesus
• death

[markdzima]

Very nice presentation on Paul's possible temporal lobe epilepsy. I'll be doing several videos on that subject myself soon, adding a few additional points I've found. And I'll also be presenting some original hypotheses using temporal lobe epilepsy as a key to understanding aspects of the history of religions.

[Donnatella624]

"Evidence...coherence...the resurrection explains all the facts..." Crazypills, you are so patient with these people. Kudos to you. That being said, very interesting video! Epilepsy? Hey, why not?

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism troll, Dennett's redefinition of free will is analogous to redefining "God" to mean nature. But does he do that? No! But why not? Because it would keep the original illusion alive, and that is not his intent!

Mr/Ms Heterodox Troll, this is my last reply to you because of the butthead you have become.

The "Gospels" indicate Jesus didn't die on the cross. Muslims tradition holds Jesus didn't die on the cross. A corpse in a hot climate rotting for 3 days didn't come back to life

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism troll, why do you keep omitting words from my statement that are key to understanding? You want to create chaos, confusion, and argue? Precisely what did I say "means that psychology is more of a religion than science"? Wasn't it, "The logical conclusion of a will that is free from the laws of cause & effect means..."? Free will would be an uncaused causer, an unmoved mover. Free will would be a religious belief. Free will IS religious dogma preached from every pulpit in the land.

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism when the Christian can believe "God" is a man-made myth with the same conviction that he now believes "God" is real, and when the atheist can believe "God" is real with the same conviction that he now believes "God" is a phantom, and the two can change their beliefs at whelm & believe one notion and then a completely contrary notion with perfect conviction, then & only then will I consider that beliefs are consciously chosen instead of merely circumstantial growths within the brain

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism troll. Now that would make sense Otherwise, you are not making any sense. You asked me a question. I went to all the trouble of trying to answer the question for you in a blog, since we are not staying on topic here in the comment section of CrazyPills2 video. And now you spouting something about see what your channel name means (one who departs from accepted beliefs or standards), which I have no idea why. Meaning what? Meaning you're a troll trying to create confusion and argue?

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, when the Christian can believe "God" is a man-made myth with the same conviction that he now believes "God" is real, and when the atheist can believe "God" is real with the same conviction that he now believes "God" is a phantom, and the two can change their beliefs at whelm & believe one notion and then a completely contrary notion with perfect conviction, then & only then will I consider that beliefs are consciously chosen instead of arising out of unconscious mental processes.

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism maybe you can provide me with an explanation as to how it could be circular reasoning for me to provide a definition out of a reputable standard dictionary?

Also, I provided two definitions and no argument, except an earlier argument against free will as defined. Maybe you can explain how I can be arguing for free will as defined when I am arguing against such?

I don't recall arguing for or against determinism as defined by Merriam-Webster. Do you intend to? What do you mean?

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, you asked me, "Do you think that each of us arrives, *unconsidered* at beliefs that are pre-programmed by our DNA?" I didn't know how to take that question since I hadn't even remotely suggested such nonsense. I could only assume the question was rhetorical, or a logical fallacy attempting to put words I never said in my mouth.

Please clarify what you were asking or implying with your question. ("*unconsidered* at beliefs" (???))

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism said, "There's no point in inviting me to view your videos and blog."

Yeah, well you're the one that I took the time and went to the trouble of transcribing Dennett's narration and creating the blog for. Remind me not to have any such respect for you should we ever stumble across each other's paths in the future.