You can tell when an apologist is lying, they use the word “fact”.

@Nick-Nasti

6 ай бұрын

@@oscarleijontoft None support a resurrection. The fact that a city existed in no way supports the supernatural claims of any holy book. Example: "Spiderman lives in NYC. NYC is a real city, thus Spiderman must exist"

@happytimechild

6 ай бұрын

You comment objection has been debunked so many times. It shows your adolescent knowledge of the field and the historicity of the Bible. Get lost troll.

@spiritsplice

5 ай бұрын

@@oscarleijontoft Some of the LOCATIONS, but NONE of the EVENTS.

@johanericsson2403

4 ай бұрын

@@oscarleijontoft No, he wasn't simply repeating what you said. He was pointing out that the "things" you mention as being corroborated by archeology are never corroborative of any religious claim in the bible, but only of place-names etc that are totally incidental to everything religious people care about.

@joeyrufo

3 ай бұрын

You can tell an apologist is lying when their lips are moving! 🤪

It's clear this debate had Carrier agree to a presupposition of the the parts of the Bible being addressed was actual historical accounts, which he doesn't even believe, and he still makes a solid argument against the resurrection. 😂

It really is amazing how Licona can call himself a skeptic, and be perfectly skeptical about resurrections and miracles regarding every other religion, and simultaneously defend christian resurrections and miracles.

@elvisischrist

6 ай бұрын

He’s an atheist that still needs to go one God further…

@spiritsplice

5 ай бұрын

All christians are liars. It has been that way since the beginning.

Richard Carrier is a real gentleman ❤️

@Daxover9000

3 жыл бұрын

He's so Christ like lol I'm an atheist BTW But seriously.. there were times when my jaw dropped at his opponent, but Carrier was so kind and calm, and civil.

@leovere

2 жыл бұрын

I did not knew that gentlemen sexually harass women to the point of being banned from atheistic conventions

@floydthomas4195

2 жыл бұрын

*Gets banned from a conference for sexually harassing multiple women* LMFAO

@michaelbrickley2443

2 жыл бұрын

Michael Vallance, Richard Carrier is deranged

@antiochorontes6374

2 жыл бұрын

@@leovere bs claims. But even if it were true, its funny how atheists treat sexual harassment more severely than you treat child rapists in your church of jesus.

Listening to Mike Licona is painful in the extreme. How anyone with a Ph.D. can hold the beliefs that he does is beyond me. His Argument from Friendship (he knows and trusts his friends, so he believes, uncritically, without reservation, everything they say, or at least accords them very high plausibility) is priceless. I had never heard that one before. He comes across as disarmingly sincere, but that seeming sincerity does not mitigate the fundamental intellectual dishonesty that reverberates through all of his arguments. He accuses Carrier of using "ad hoc" scenarios as plausible explanations for the Empty Tomb, while he himself invokes a supernatural being to accomplish his Resurrection scenario-the most "ad hoc" of all scenarios. That is intellectual dishonesty, since he is well aware that there is no evidentiary basis, from the historian's point of view, for the existence of supernatural beings. He is well aware that other Saviour cults during the first century C.E. also claimed resurrection for their Saviour gods, yet he dismisses these claims as false and does not invoke the supernatural in these cases. How much more "ad hoc" can you get?

@leovere

2 жыл бұрын

If you look closely those cults didn't existed

@MichaelMendis

2 жыл бұрын

@@leovere You obviously have not looked closely enough. I have, and I have no doubt that they existed. Quite apart from the documentary evidence, there is archaeological evidence (in the form of inscriptions, statuary, and carvings) of their existence, which you obviously know nothing about.

@leovere

2 жыл бұрын

@@MichaelMendis For example?

@MichaelMendis

2 жыл бұрын

@@leovere The carving of the passion of Mithras on display at Musées de la Cour d'Or in Metz, France. Look it up on Google under "The Mithraic Altar".

@leovere

2 жыл бұрын

@@MichaelMendis "We can here discover Mithra sacrificing a bull whose blood flows on the ground to reinvigorate the earth and fertilize it. On both sides of the deity are two teenagers, holding torches or "dadophores", cautes and cautopates. One of them personifies the rising sun, the other the sun descending. The god Sol, which appears on one of the uprights of the relief, is there also to accentuate the solar character of Mithra." So what does Mithra sacrificing a bull have to do with Jesus?

Thanks for posting the video. I've come to consider myself an atheist after having escaped the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). I was born into the church, and was an active member until about age 20. As with most other young men in the Church, I served a 2 year mission in an effort to spread the word of god and bring the truth to the world. My mission was not what I though. Rather than seeing servants of christ spreading the truth of the gospel, I saw an organization (let's be honest and call it a business) that taught young men, who have been conditioned from birth, to manipulate the indigent, poorly educated and naïve. For almost a year I took part in manipulating the public in order to enrich the church. After getting a peak behind the curtain the dominoes in my brain began to fall revealing truth, after truth, after truth, and exposing more and more lies, deceptions and inconsistencies within the church and its doctrine. After almost excessive prayer and very diligent study, the cold hard truth is that science answered my call for help and god was overwhelmingly absent. You seem like a decent man. It truly hurts my heart that you have been lied to your whole life, and that your conditioning is so engrained that you will probably never come to terms with the truth. Indeed, even after abandoning religion and deciding that I "no longer believed", it took more than 15 years to be able consider the true nature of reality without having that process tainted by the lies I had clung to for the first 20 years of my life. More than 15 years to heal from the shame, guilt and and crippling pressure associated with being a christian. Even after 10 years of separation I would still get defensive and angry if I heard someone else speak out against the church. It breaks my heart to think that you will likely never know the sense of freedom, excitement and confidence that comes as a result of abandoning superstition and ridiculous claims about the supernatural. I am sincerely sorry. The brainwashing imposed on children by religious parents and institutions should be illegal. It is very literally child abuse. Though it is not likely you will abandon your faith, if that does occur please reach to someone who can guide you through the process. I wish I had know about the myriad resources available to people in this situation. It would have helped me heal much more quickly. I do owe you thanks. I appreciate you posting these debates. For me they reinforce how necessary reason, logic and evidence are. This is not meant as an insult, but the argument of faith simply falls flat, regardless of your opponent. Worse than that, it screams ignorance, arrogance and fear. I guess what I'm trying to say is thank you. Thank your for strengthening the positions of the scientific method, reason and logic by showing just how ridiculous belief in the mistic, supernatural, and miraculous is. Be well and good lcuk, Michael

@Blackestofblack

Жыл бұрын

Good on you mike. Cheers

@mikerodgers7620

10 ай бұрын

Too bad you won't escape hell.

@MyReligionIs2DoGood

7 ай бұрын

Congratulations on your escape from mental slavery, and welcome to the real world! 👍👋

@endygonewild2899

6 ай бұрын

That came off as pretty condescending,

@MyReligionIs2DoGood

6 ай бұрын

@@endygonewild2899 Less condescending than religious people claiming they are part of the small moral elite that will survive the rapture, and that everyone who doesn't believe what they believe will burn in hell.

Mike Licona is very impressed by big books. I think he judges their value by how many pages there are.

“These beliefs are the facts I am using” what?!?! 🤦🏼‍♀️

@JB-jg9lo

4 ай бұрын

The end of all further Licona’s conclusions 😊

That was one of the best debate formats I've seen. And the moderator did a great job of moving things forward. The participants both showed a tremendous amount of respect and courtesy. Wish more were like this. I haven't listened to closing remarks or Q&A yet. Hoping the last 45 minutes doesn't go south...

@sebastianvalentin3366

2 жыл бұрын

instaBlaster...

1:03:15_Liconas Stalin argument backfired big time.

It’s really hard to take Mike seriously as a historian given the mental gymnastics he has to go through to reach his conclusions. Secular historians, like Richard, would never do that in their research. It’s pretty clear that Mike’s compromising his intellectual and academic integrity for the sake of maintaining his worldview, which is sad to watch.

@strawberrylatte8742

2 жыл бұрын

Actually-- Richard made some tremendous errors when talking about Christianity. For example, he tries to argue that James isn't the biological brother of Jesus. Even though this is possibly the strongest historical point you can make about Jesus; his lineage, and his family. It's irrefutable. Even Paul calls James ''the brother of the Lord'', which he uses in reference to James alone. This completely messes up the mythicist approach, so they do all kinds of mental gymnastics to get over this fact. It's quite hilarious. They fall back on logical fallacies by saying that everyone was ''a brother'' in the Christian circle, and completely disregarding the unique context in which Paul speaks of James (as opposed to the other believers). So yea, Carrier is not above fudging facts and outright lying in certain cases. Yet the best ''gem'' that came from Carrier is the claim that even Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus figure. He says Paul thought Jesus was created through king David's sperm which God saved up in a ''cosmic sperm bank''. And Carrier actually says how this is easily extracted from the text, which is comedy gold. I can't believe he wrote that with a straight face. Not only is there absolutely no such thing being suggested in the Christian text, it's also nowhere to be found in other Jewish traditions of that time. He literally made it up to claim Paul didn't think Jesus was an actual person, with an actual brother. Contrary to what you may think, skeptics are just as biased as certain religious people. Sometimes even more so.

@patrickjohneby1306

2 жыл бұрын

@@strawberrylatte8742 I agree. I’m not a mythicist and aren’t convinced by his arguments concerning the Pauline epistles. That doesn’t mean all of his scholarly work is bunk. I take and evaluate both Licona’s and Carrier’s arguments as they come

@strawberrylatte8742

2 жыл бұрын

@@patrickjohneby1306 Eyyy, glad we agree on something :)

@patrickjohneby1306

2 жыл бұрын

@@strawberrylatte8742 Me too!

@Ubermichello72

2 жыл бұрын

@@strawberrylatte8742 My question to you is, exactly how far did you have to reach up your ass to pull out that nonsense you speak of?!?!? No need to answer, after reading what you posted I find no reason to take anything you could possibly say serious. However, I will admit that your version of Word salad did get my attention

If God wants he can do anything but doesn’t do the right thing , the right thing to do would be to show everyone Jesus and allow people to make a choice , now that would make the christian god a smart and compassionate god but that never will happen .... Love Dr Carrier . Peace and love

Mike reminds me of my brother, who is also a devout Christian, and somehow thinks that makes him smarter than everybody else and an expert on every topic. And his acceptance of towels flying After his dad joined the freemasons is concerning. - Early in the questioning, he gives his layman’s anAlysis of Schizotypal personality disorder, based on the mayo clinic website, then he accuses Dr. Carrier of doing psychohistory. - Well, what if Dr Craig said he saw you in California minutes after I saw you in New York, and let’s just say we were sure that both were you, and let’s assume he said he saw you get into a spaceship, and let’s imagine he wasn’t lying, and let’s assume he wasn’t hallucinating, and let’s presume you were verified to have been in both places, would you then conclude it was true? Painful, Like talking to a 5 yr old about monsters under the bed

@leovere

2 жыл бұрын

Of course yes, It is a very well known phenomenon, it is called bi-location There are menu well known cases of that like the mulata de cordoba or many Catholic saints

@DJRickard2010

2 жыл бұрын

@@leovere by well known, are you implying that you believe the accounts to be true, or that a lot of people know OF the tales?

@leovere

2 жыл бұрын

@@DJRickard2010 I believe

@DJRickard2010

2 жыл бұрын

@@leovere I thought so. I’m more curious about what evidence you base that belief on. From my perspective, I don’t see any substantial evidence of the “supernatural,” and certainly not of the things you say you believe in.

@r0ky_M

Жыл бұрын

The fact Licona would find snake oil salesman William Craig at all credible says it all..😂

it’s unlikely that a 6-sided die will land on one, therefore it landed on infinity

@Greyz174

2 жыл бұрын

Does this mean that it's unlikely that there is a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection phenonmenon so therefore there must have been a supernatural one?

@9tailjeza

2 жыл бұрын

@@Greyz174 it means that, arguing some naturalistic explanation as “unlikely” by no means supports the supernatural explanation

@Greyz174

2 жыл бұрын

@@9tailjeza cool

Great, Mike starts out by stating four criteria for explanatory power, then immediately proceeds to break three of them with his explanation.

@theunrepentantatheist24

Жыл бұрын

An explanation which appeals to supernatural or miraculous claims - can never have more power than a naturalistic one. It is always going to be more probably that tens of thousands of people had a hallucination - than that a human being was killed - and lived again. Licona cannot accept that reasoning - because he presupposes that the resurrection happened.

@yuunoaboi21

9 ай бұрын

​@theunrepentantatheist24 its not just that tens of thousands of people halucinated but that disproving their hallucinations would be as simple as showing the body of christ and saying Here have it happy now Especially when it was gaurded by roman centurions that would be punished by death if they allowed the body to have been stolen

"Bu-b-but, Pat saw demons in the night though 🥺🥺🥺"

. _"that is called "explanatory power"_ ? It's called _"making shit up on the spot"._

Here's a question or 2. What is the significance of someone coming back from the dead? It means they're a god? If they're a god, then why did they have to die in the first place? I mean, if you have the power to bring yourself BACK from the dead, it's probably even easier not to die in the first place. Also, what is the meaning in/what is accomplished by sacrificially killing someone if they can't stay dead? Not much of a sacrifice, is it?

It’s a shame mike has to come to debates with stories. A friend who’s friend died seeing a demon face. Another friends trash can lid flew against the wall after a seance. Then the friend who needed a certain monetary relief that after church prayer ended up with the exact amount. Should have you really questioning mike.

@paulrichards6894

2 жыл бұрын

these people are so desperate and so silly.......mikes motivation could be money but he does sound genuine......so i can only think he fears death and will believe any old nonsense

@christianlaraque2234

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulrichards6894 I thought the same until I saw his buddy Gary habermas get caught exaggerating near death experiences. He adds facts that aren’t there to perpetuate the story. Mike does the same thing. Like saying the father turned the news paper. Etc. it’s a story tactic

@bobbun9630

2 жыл бұрын

The anecdotes he shares are ridiculous. The goal is to appear credible, not credulous.

@Preservestlandry

Жыл бұрын

Does he think the friend with the demon went to hell? Isn't that the meaning of seeing the demon behind her? What a horrible thing to believe about a lady it sounds like he doesn't even personally know. Or is the demon there even if the friend went to heaven? How could that be? That would be terrible too.

@nunomartins2209

Жыл бұрын

​@@Preservestlandry My undertanding is that his belief is the devil was somewhat responsible for the friends friend dyieng, thats why he showed to her. Anyway that just seems a fantasy story

This is interesting and it's also cool how the arguments have evolved over the years.

Congolese profits and pastors are a dime a dozen here in South Africa. All of them can do miracles. Funny thing is that they are all super wealthy also. Strange that...

@finosuilleabhain7781

2 жыл бұрын

Hence your spelling of 'prophets' as 'profits'. :o)

my ex wife thought god was speaking to her. she was put in a mental heath facility and diagnosed as bi-polar.

@DUDEBroHey

4 ай бұрын

Replication crisis in psychology...

Poor Mike Licona…… he believes in fantasies….

It endlessly fascinates me that in the 21st Century, we can look back and study ancient ways of viewing the world by countless cultures, learning their rituals, understanding how their beliefs arose from fear, despair, ignorance, and need for control and organization, all propped up by fantastical tales never seen. But then the majority of people on Earth picked one of those and said, "Wait, but THIS one's real." People really are funny creatures.

@leovere

2 жыл бұрын

21th century after who?

@lil-al

2 жыл бұрын

@@leovere After people started believing fantastical tales of one particular non-existent god-man.

Who ever believes these ridiculous stories is truly lost.

@paulrichards6894

2 жыл бұрын

someone told me yesterday only 7% of the world's population is atheist......if that figure is true then that's troubling.......i have a feeling it's much higher than that

Mike operates on faith which for me is a non starter. I am looking for testable, reliable, knowledge.

I can’t believe Mike Licona thinks ghost sightings count as evidence

@lil-al

2 жыл бұрын

I can. When you are desperate to have the truth you will believe anything.

@HFH-Official

Жыл бұрын

I can't believe that simply because he doesn't believe something happened, Carrier automatically assumes it cannot be true.

@Preservestlandry

Жыл бұрын

@@HFH-Official he didn't say that. He said there are other known scientific explanations so there is no reason to assume it's non-scientific, non-natural, or supernatural. Not that it's impossible.

@nunomartins2209

Жыл бұрын

​@@HFH-Official Well Carier provides logical reasons why those things had a naturalistic reason

@mikerodgers7620

10 ай бұрын

Too some they do.

Licona, historians do not use "goddidit" as an explanation for anything. If you do, then you need to hand back your qualifications.

An excellent debate. They are trying to convince each other rather than pleasing the audience. Carrier stays on track perfectly. Never takes offense. Mike too tries to stay objective. It seems obvious that Carrier's point of view is superior. But I don't like to say who won. They both did.

Nice. So by Erhmans argument, Harry Potter really existed because so many contemporary people wrote about HP. And in 2000 years when everyone believes HP existed, you’ll look foolish to believe that it was just a fictional kids book!

@jaromsmiss

2 жыл бұрын

do you believe that alexender the great lived? yes or no? also. how else do we determine history at all if we can not go based off writings of something? please tell. ( history as in thousands of years old ancient rome etc...)

@Greyz174

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaromsmiss There needs to be a higher bar of evidence for someone who is 1) a completely unique person who has preformed miracles that no single other human has and 2) someone whose existence and my acknowledgement of it determines not only how I live the rest of my life but the eternal fate of my soul. I can accept the story of Alexander as probably true but not be 100% sure, but be OK with not being 100% sure and also open to be proven wrong (I promise I wouldn't be up in arms and asserting my unassailable truth if you showed me an argument that he was made up or the record was incorrect) because whether or not I go to hell doesn't depend on any of that. So with these two conditions, there has to be a lot more scrutiny because the extent of the claims and also the consequences of their truth are far more severe. What are your thoughts on that?

@jaromsmiss

2 жыл бұрын

@@Greyz174 IT def seems as if you're just moving the goalpost over to get your point across. Regardless of who it is..if one believes anyone thousands of years old was real ( alexander the Great, Roman emperors etc..) they cant just void out Jesus because it doesnt fit their narrative. For instance the FIRST documents we have that alexander the great ever lived is THREE HUNDRED years AFTER he had died. yet christ myth theory has issues with documents only 40 -150 years out from Christ? how does that make any sense? take note. What you're arguing for what now is that Christ was divine or not. OF course we have no definite evidence of that. Im arguing that he was a REAL person who was not a myth. a made up person based off pagan Gods. the only evidence we have that Christ was divine was the tesimony of the witnesses and really nothing else. That I understand. An atheist will never believe even if there were a thousand documents of witnesses. but anyways thats besides the point here.

@Greyz174

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaromsmiss You can just clarify what you were asking instead of assuming that I was doing a bad faith goalpost shift I order to sneak in me being right. I just figured you were defending the whole Jesus everything as verifiable, especially since you didn't make the "real person/miracles" distinction. Super bad faith of you to assume that I'm aware of what you actually meant but dishonestly shifting the conversation into a place where I can make my point. OK so if we're just talking about him existing and not the magical part, I'd still go with my needing of more scrutiny point, because it makes sense that people would invent him to create a narrative, and that is still part of a narrative is a narrative that has enormous consequences, so we are of course going to look more at the fine details. Now to be clear, I haven't looked at all of the details. I just started being interested in the verifiable history recently, and I'm going through this content to find out. But like I said, even if there's just the matter of him existing on the table, it's still more important to scrutinize that than there is to scrutinize Alexander the great because if we can show whether or not he existed then we don't even have to address the miraculous part. And it would be valuable to know that he didn't exist because it would be another example of people inventing a person and his story to follow as a way to understand their worldview, which is all sorts of interesting and gives more insight to how people work and how religions are formed which is a hard core part of what draws me to the topic But again I am not definitely making the claim that he wasn't real, I'm still learning. If you'd like to send reading or videos on the matter my way I'd be more than happy to look at them

@jaromsmiss

2 жыл бұрын

@@Greyz174 "You can just clarify what you were asking instead of assuming that I was doing a bad faith goalpost shift I order to sneak in me being right" ........... . considering this entire debate is Richard Carrier who is debating that Christ did NOT exist I would assume those in the comment section would be basing their words off what is in the video? Were you able to watch any of this debate? or? Plus I never mentioned a thing about Jesus being Divine. at all. You brough that up. So the reality is you assumed as much as I assumed there. I could just as easily say it's bad faith for you to reply the way you did. What you're saying is not a proper form of rationale. One cannot say they believed that Alexander the Great lived but Not jesus. You do realize that most (99 percent) of historical scholars including world respected scholar Bart Ehrman believe Jesus was a real historical figure. This includes atheist and agnostic historical scholars too. The christ myth theory is a theory that is not respected at all across the board in the historical field. In fact most Christ Myth ideas aren't even peer reviewed because so many scholars already have concluded that Jesus was in fact a real walking human 2000 years ago. Not only that but there are outside sources from early ancient history. From Josephus to Taticus..we can see that the very very early historians talked about a "Christ" or jesus being killed by a Pilate. (non christian sources) even though for whatever reason no one wants to use the actual bible as history even though it is...if one added in the biblical documents on top of the outside sources you have more than enough evidence to conclude Jesus was a real individual. Didnt mean to be rude by my comment but I'm always on the defensive end when someone responds to my comment. I know how some people play mind games on words. thats all. but i feel you.

Licona is reaching real world conclusions from bible stories none of which have been historically confirmed - why is Carrier letting him do this? No need for the hallucination hypothesis.

If Jesus existed, JESUS WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT A VERY GOOD SPEAKER/TEACHER/PREACHER!!! He didn't make ANYTHING about himself/God any CLEARER! And, 2,000 years later there are STILL debates about who he even was. We STILL don't know who wrote what is supposed to be a holy book. Maybe he should have written it himself! And, there are so many conflicts that cannot be reconciled within it. We STILL don't have originals and the copies and translations of it differ greatly. Even the believers of him don't agree!!! If I were to rate him as a teacher, I'd give Jesus an "F"!!!

@Chomper750

3 жыл бұрын

There is a lot you probably don't understand because you read the texts wrong. You aren't reading them with an understanding of the cultural mindset of a 1st century Jew.

@gabepearson6104

3 жыл бұрын

He didn’t make anything about himself, true, however hanibal did not make anything about himself either. There are still debates over a lot of historical characters. We do have a nice idea of who wrote the gospels and I’ll gladly discuss that if you want

@JoelJose-tx3vn

2 жыл бұрын

The son of man!!!!

@elainejohnson6955

2 жыл бұрын

@@gabepearson6104 The Gospels were written anonymously and decades after Jesus supposedly died. Was your Jesus born in -4 BC before King Herod died? Or, was he born after +6 AD when Quirinius first became Governor?!!

@elainejohnson6955

2 жыл бұрын

@@Chomper750 If it takes a Jewish person from the 1st century to understand the Bible, why don't Jewish people believe Jesus was their Messiah?!? And why didn't your God make a translation I could understand if he expects me to believe it??? That is a poor teacher!!! Was your Jesus born before -4 BC when King Herod died, as the Bible describes? Or, was he born in +6 AD, when Quirinius first became Governor and performed a census, as the Bible also describes?!? That doesn't require a Jewish person from the 1st century to understand. Take Dan Barker's "Easter Challenge" and if you can make a coherent story out of the Bible, you should get a Nobel Prize!!!!

Fantastic dialog. I struggle to agree with Dr Licona because his presentation is highly presuppositional. Anecdotal evidence of the supernatural is frankly unconvincing. For instance, that would never be used for the FDA to approve medicine. I think Dr Licona is nevertheless brilliant and respectful, I am just confused as to how he's not seeing his total abandonment of objectivity. Dr Carrier presented a position that does NOT require clairvoyance, though I felt he should have pressed harder on Dr Licona's special pleading, argument to authority, and countless other fallacious manners of thinking that have tricked him into a conclusion that is unfathomably improbable. To be blunt, it is exactly these conversations that have contributed to my waning belief in Christianity. The apologist position is DEFENSIVE which indicates presupposition which indicates an inability to present factual evidence in an unbiased manner. All that aside, the fact we can have these conversations is a celebration of humanity. I greatly respect both gentlemen and hope we get to see more of them again really soon.

@HumblyQuestioning

4 жыл бұрын

Also, both gentlemen appear to never age. Whatever they're doing academically is less miraculous than how they've managed to maintain neoteny.

@glurp1

3 жыл бұрын

@@chiphebert2509 The same could be said for skepticism, especially Humean reasoning.

@glurp1

3 жыл бұрын

Carrier doesn't seem to have researched contemporary miraculous claims, which are abundant. Instead, he just assumes things about them. I think these offer good confirmation of early Christian claims.

@HumblyQuestioning

3 жыл бұрын

@@glurp1 Do you feel that contemporary miracle accounts also offer confirmation of Islam? Mormons? Hindus? Religions of the ancient Greeks and Romans? If not, how are you determining that the miracles confirm your position but fail to confirm others?

@glurp1

3 жыл бұрын

@@HumblyQuestioning The attestation of some miracles in multiple religious contexts does not inherently mean that they cancel each other out. Many religions, including Christianity, acknowledge the possibility of different agents being responsible for supernatural events. Which religion offers the best explanation then depends on other factors. It is often assumed that the claims and evidence related to miracles in different religions is fairly even. However, from my research so far, that does not seem to be the case. A secular overview of evidence for the nonphysical can be found in Irreducible Mind by Kelly et al. A Christian overview of evidence for miracles (he also discusses claims in other religions) is Craig Keener's 2-vol work on the subject. He also discusses prophecy in his commentary on Acts, though I haven't read it.

Even in the 21st century the debate rages about what is supposed to be the single most important fact about christianity and appears even more ambiguous and problematic. This is supposed to be good enough evidence?

@glurp1

3 жыл бұрын

Or the issue becomes more ambiguous because more people place an unnecessarily high value on naturalistic explanations.

@bradwhelan4466

3 жыл бұрын

@@glurp1 Naturalism deserves its reputation due to its repeated reliability in providing observable, demonstrable and verifiable results. Unlike supernaturalism, which is relentless in its inability to cogently explain anything.

@glurp1

3 жыл бұрын

@@bradwhelan4466 I disagree, but we have all made vague assertions. The Devil is in the details.

@bradwhelan4466

3 жыл бұрын

@@glurp1 Vague assertion? My comment is not only evidently true . I challenge you to undermine its veracity by presenting evidence to the contrary.

@glurp1

3 жыл бұрын

@@bradwhelan4466 I see several issues. The first is the seeming conflation of methodological and philosophical naturalism. Many supernatural phenomena, such as the resurrection, are more appropriate for historical than scientific inquiry. So methodological naturalism can't even evaluate the question. Second, some supernatural phenomena can be evaluated to some extent using science. This includes out-of-body experiences during near-death experiences. So far, naturalistic explanations, such as hallucinations due to hypoxia, have failed to fit the data. Third, philosophical naturalism has yet to explain the mind in any basic way. Consciousness remains inexplicable despite decades of intensive research. And many phenomena directly challenge reductionist models and offer evidence for nonlocal consciousness. Fourth, some developments in quantum physics raise doubts about materialism rather than confirming it. Fifth, philosophical naturalism fails to offer a meaningful understanding of morality. It doesn't solve the is-ought problem. It also fails to account for other aspects of human experience like love, which loses its essential meaning in a reductionist model. Many philosophical naturalists try to offer explanations that do not fit their reductuonist assumptions because they can't accept the implications. Irreducible Mind by Kelly et al. provides an overview of evidence for dualism. Craig Keener's 2-volume work on miracles offers an overview of evidence in that field. It also discusses the the circularity of Humean skepticism and demonstrates how skeptics often move the goal post when presented with evidence.

2:08 Are we forgetting that the last 12 verses or Mark are forged and in the earliest versions of Mark we have, for the women there was no resurrection appearance at all. It was the Men who allegedly saw Jesus.

@countvanbruno182

3 жыл бұрын

I think Carrier is just being nice and he wants to give his opponent the benefit of the doubt. Other debaters would not have granted this claim.

@mediamactv

2 жыл бұрын

No one is forgetting that. Even the early church fathers knew what the original ending was and knew of the forged endings from as early as the 2nd century. The earliest scribes marked the extra verses appropriately. It's no secret and never has been.

@jonfromtheuk467

2 жыл бұрын

@@mediamactv then the women who fled the alleged tomb were not comforted or elated, they probably thought that someone had stolen the body and were scared. A bit strange if he had said he would return eh? Personally I think it highly unlikely there was a tomb, I think he was chucked in a communal grave like everyone else. The notion that the romans would allow a permanent martyrs shrine of someone who claimed to be King of the Jews is fanciful and naive.

@mediamactv

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonfromtheuk467 Not strange at all if you read the entire narrative. The disciples never truly understood that Jesus would rise again. None of them. He told them multiple times but they didn't get it. He even told them they wouldn't understand until later. No wonder because the purpose for his death and resurrection was a radical departure from what they had learned growing up. Also, they had a hard time understanding many things Jesus said because he often spoke metaphorically or in parables. They may have had a hard time knowing when he was speaking metaphorically or literally. In regards to the women's reaction, fear and trembling was a common reaction to being in the presence of God or angels all throughout the bible.

@jonfromtheuk467

2 жыл бұрын

@@mediamactv Well firstly we can't know what Jesus said verbatim exactly can we? The disciples apparently were not able to read and write , there are no mention of any amanuensis being around at any time - the Gospels were written many decades later in Greek from oral stories that had been in circulation and got changed. Also its very easy to write in elements like they didnt understand, decades later to fit a chosen narrative yes? Of course if you are writing a gospel to appeal to Jews that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah then you have a hard job, because he was squashed by the very people God had promised would be vanquished so you can just insert ahhh it was all a cunning plan and God raised Jesus/himself so he, or they, are the Messiah after all. Neat literary trick/get out of jail card that can be played there! As far as fear and trembling goes I dont think it actually happened anyhow. I dont believe in angels/demons....... or God for that matter.

False memory embellishments are more plausible then a man rising from the dead.

Starts at 5:13

I really like watching Licona argue, he's about the only theist that seems to try and answer any questions put to him. Pity he makes so many assumptions that are unfounded and then claims that Carrier is doing this when he really isn't.

For several debates after this one, Licona uses the exact same "argumentation" rife with fallacies and assumptions. One lie he insists on is that there are many witnesses who claim Jesus appeared to: James, Peter, "the 500" and lastly Paul. But who is the source for that? ONE source: Paul. And Paul is a liar. He can't even get his own story straight between Galatians, Corinthians and Acts when he recounts on what he did after his "experience" on the road to Damascus. Debating the plausibility of mass hallucinations of fabricated witnesses... 🤔 It's ironic also how Licona explains that the historical method should have the least amount of non-evidenced assumptions (at 09:24). For Jesus to have been raised from the dead, you have to make a lot of assumptions. Really a lot. Off the top of my head, I can offer an explanation that has vastly more explanatory power than a bodily resurrection and accounts for all the events described in the gospels: Jesus did not die on the cross (there are a number of good arguments to be made for that), his father Joseph took him to a private garden where he could tend to his wounds. Two days later, Jesus feels better and appears to his followers. Voila, mystery solved. Accounting for almost all "facts" without forcing them, it agrees with widely accepted facts and only needs ONE assumption: that Jesus existed. Another theory that would do all the above: Jesus is a fictional character. Not plausible? People make up stories all the time. Roland the Gunslinger, king Aragorn, king John Presbyter, king Aegon Targaryen, Tarzan, Batman, Superman... A possible exception may be Richard Cypher Rahl however 🤔... not sure about that one 😀. There's no consensus among biblical scholars and historians on him. As Selvam Maniamawasi here below points out: proving the absurd with more absurdity doesn't increase credibility.

There's such a big difference in ability to argue their point, albeit both unconvincingly, between Lincona and Dr Craig. The real shame is there's not really anyone outside if Dr. Carrier, at least to my knowledge, with the ability to convey the historicity of Jesus with such clarity. Incredible job as always by Dr. Carrier here.

How many times did Licona check if Elvis was still in his grave when multiple people claimed to see him alive after he died?

@DUDEBroHey

4 ай бұрын

Would you we see news about someone tampering with Elvis's grave? Do we have reason to believe the body was missing and can we verify it's still there?

1:25:00 don't worry everyone, she's a brilliant girl not given to this sort of thing. And Jesus would be the LAST person Paul would ever want to hallucinate. Got it?

Lacona said “ this guy is whiter then you and me, but he married a black women from Congo” what was his point?

Licona is painfully painfully stupid it's actually quite amazing how much patients Carrier has with him here

Wow, it is truly amazing Licona's response (1:29:00) on the chance of resurrection is: "Yes, ever other claimed incidence of resurrection turned out to be false but just found out about one guy in Africa who said resurrections happen! So now I'm believing that they do happen." (ps. This 'well-documented Africa resurrection' claim obviously bogus...there has been plenty of time for it to be confirmed by now.)

The trouble with applying Bayes' theorem is that it requires both information that scholars don't have and an understanding of (when, how, and whether to apply) Bayes' theorem that scholars don't have.

watching this debate, I noticed time and again that Mike Licona bases the vast majority of his arguments on anecdotal evidence. He also based his entire premise on the a priori fallacy: in that he presumes that a god already exists and that Jesus was god incarnate and did resurrect and then looked for evidence to confirm these presuppositions. Conversely I noticed that Richard took an academic approach, where he cited studies and journals, and instead attempted to look at, what is more probable to have occurred, not what he wants the conclusion to be. Watching this, it's obvious that Mike Licona lost and utterly lost, on every point. I even noticed that Carrier made points to Licona, that Licona utterly ignored responding to, or very quickly changed the subject. For example at the 1:00:56 mark, Richard asks a question and Mike says it's a great question, but very quickly manages to rephrase/ strawman's Richard's point, in order to respond to HIS strawman of it, instead of what was actually asked of him. "how about this... let me know what you think about this? And this would have been before the New Testament. The character of God that is presented in the bible..." - This response was NOT what was asked of Licona. I found this dishonest, for what was Richard's question, on his side of the Q&A section. I didn't find anything that Mike Licona said, to be at all convincing. His arguments were from a believer's perspective, not an historian's perspective and I noticed time and again, that Licona made huge category error assertions, such as charging Richard with the argument from ignorance fallacy, where he asserted he had to come up with a better solution for how Jesus resurrected, using the historical method. Well the historical method does not assume that miracle events occurred to begin with, something that Licona utterly ignored for every point Carrier made about every other mythical historical claim, such as other resurrection claims/ cults that existed at the time of the early Christians.

It’s hard to believe someone would debate about things written in a book as every line is completely true. How embarrassing for the human race.

Poor mike…he’s wasted his life on nonsense

The Bible states that the Jewish people are yahweh's ( God's) chosen people. The majority of the books in the Bible was written by Jews. Like other religions that favors their own people.

5:15 Lacuna opening. 25:10 - Carrier opening.

@williancamaraporteladefran1791

4 жыл бұрын

You are very stupid.

@jlong9574

3 жыл бұрын

@@williancamaraporteladefran1791 very emotional arent you

@j.victor

3 жыл бұрын

@@williancamaraporteladefran1791 Iae, cara. Bom saber que tem BR por aqui!

@williancamaraporteladefran1791

3 жыл бұрын

@@j.victor puxa, fiquei feliz também!

@j.victor

3 жыл бұрын

@@williancamaraporteladefran1791 Na verdade, estou com algumas dúvidas sobre a ressurreição e estou assistindo todos os debates que consigo achar. Isso é muito ruim. Estou me sentindo muito mal. Usando termos bem católicos, eu espero que esteja no purgatório. O lado ruim é que dói estar aqui, mas o lado bom é que (pelo menos) eu vou sair em algum lugar!

Por favor traduzcan al español!

Carrier leaves out the most likely explanation for people who claim visions to promote a religion - it's called LYING

@MyNameIsJ3ffrey

4 жыл бұрын

S. Carl I guess that argument against that is that these people were subjected to pretty ruthless persecution and many died pretty gruesome deaths. I can understand one person being delusional to the point of being willing to die for something they know not to be true, but all of them? For what gain?

@1FeistyKitty

4 жыл бұрын

@@MyNameIsJ3ffrey - i'm speaking generally about all religious not your sacred cow in particular

@MyNameIsJ3ffrey

4 жыл бұрын

S. Carl I think though that’s the argument many Christian apologist use for Jesus’s existence. 1.) there are Roman sources who speak on Jesus (pliny the younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, and etc). It would appear that even the earliest critics of Christianity didn’t dispute Jesus’s existence. 2.) If you honestly thing Bayesian Probability is a good idea for determining historicity, would you mind expanding on that? 3.) Many people in ancient Canaan had somewhat of a contextual understanding of who Jesus was and it is doubtful that 1st century Christianity in Canaan would’ve had any success if these people didn’t at least have some surrounding corroborating evidence that Jesus existed. 4.) I personally have no doubt that most religious figures actually existed. Whether it be Mohammad or Buddha or etc. the argument really ought to be is whether there’s any legitimacy to their claims.

@1FeistyKitty

4 жыл бұрын

@@MyNameIsJ3ffrey 1) you are FN crazy to believe in a religion that has satanism on it's face. (human sacrifice, eat the body, drink the blood) 2) the old Testament says there is only one god ------- the new Testament invents 2 more gods.... BOOM! CHECKMATE! ---- you are brainwashed by the DEVILS in this world ---- that gate is narrow my friend!

@LogicAndReason2025

4 жыл бұрын

Rick Carrier recently gave the historicity of JC at around 1/3. That got me thinking (dangerous) So I came up with this "trinity": 1/3 chance it is all fake, 1/3 chance he was a con-man/ illusionist, and 1/3 chance god is a looney.

Very polite debate from both sides.

Mike Licona doesn't have to work to hard in convincing me that intellectual honesty is not his strong point. Philosophy is a nécessité four

@motivesofcredibility3788

3 жыл бұрын

Come now, that's a little presumptuous, isn't it? Rude, even? He did, after all, show an openness to a non-literal reading of Matthew 27 which landed him in hot water with his fellow Evangelicals.

@ramigilneas9274

3 жыл бұрын

@@motivesofcredibility3788 The fascinating part is that it is even possible that a historian who thinks that a story about risen saints, who appeared to many people, that somehow is only mentioned in a single extremely biased source and nowhere else, can lose his job for agreeing with pretty much all other historians on the planet. But it’s fantastic evidence for the sad fact that many Christian historians who work for Christian institutions don’t have the academic freedom to be intellectually honest and follow the evidence where it leads.

@motivesofcredibility3788

3 жыл бұрын

@@ramigilneas9274 That's a whole other can of worms, and has no bearing on what I said above. That said, I've never actually made a count of how many Christian historians aren't allowed to make such claims at their colleges & doubt you have either, so your claim about "many" is (to say the least) open to question. Same with the claim about what most historians think about the historicity of Matthew 27. I haven't read "most" historians & neither have you. Time is too limited for either of us to do that, so let's not pretend we know what "most" historians say, okay? & as for Matthew 27 only having a single source... that wouldn't make it unhistorical, as a good deal of historical events are limited to a single attestation, & a good deal more aren't attested to at all. Even Bart Ehrman says as much in his book. Ehrman's beef with such claims aren't so much that they're poorly attested (though he likely thinks that as well); his real beef with them is that they're miraculous. That's why, in an earlier debate with Licona, Ehrman was skeptical of even more widely attested (supposed) miracles like the Marian Apparitions in Zeitoun Egypt, despite them meeting various criteria he himself uses to ascertain the history of various portions of the Gospels, such as multiple independent attestation from people of differing religious & political backgrounds, etc. Personally, I think background beliefs about the existence of God, etc. play a bigger role in the conclusions that Licona & Ehrman come to than simple historiography.

@ramigilneas9274

3 жыл бұрын

@@motivesofcredibility3788 The evidence for most of the stories of the gospels is very weak. But the evidence for the risen saints is the weakest historical evidence imaginable. If the response of a historian is anything other than "This most likely didn’t happen.“ or "If there is any fact that we can know about history then it is that this event is just a legend.“ then it isn’t a real historian.😂 Usually it isn’t a problem that there is only a single attestation for an event. But risen saints appearing to many people, a 3 hour resurrection darkness, the broken temple curtain aren’t usual events... if they happened then EVERY source of the first century would have known about it and written about it. So in this special case you have to explain why no one else mentioned those events. For unbiased historians who apply the historical method the explanation is very easy... it’s just a legend. For fundamentalists who pretend to be Historians but ignore everything they learned about the historical method the explanation is also very easy... the Bible says it, therefore it must be true. It’s only difficult for people like Licona who know that as a historian he has to conclude that it’s just a legend but also tries to save the reliability of the gospels... so he has to come up with convoluted explanations for why all of those stories didn’t happen and why it isn’t a problem.😉

@motivesofcredibility3788

3 жыл бұрын

@@ramigilneas9274 Licona doesn't say Matthew 27 is legendary; he says it's apocalyptic. In other words, if he's right, then Matthew & his original audience would have known from the get-go the story wasn't to be taken literally, whereas a legend is a story that straddles the line between being historical & non-historical, leaving the audience unsure how exactly how historically they're meant to take it. As for "real historians" being ones who automatically reject the bulk of Gospel material, that simply begs the question & decides ahead of time to dismiss all those very real historians who take a good deal of the Gospel material seriously as being historical in substance. As for the claim that ALL of our extant sources would mention Matthew 27: 1) We don't have a ton of first century sources in general; 2) The sources we do have aren't all concerned with Jesus or Christianity; and 3) Bart Ehrman himself rejects arguments that run "We have no first century sources...", as the bulk of first century sources haven't come down to us. Any number of events or persons might have been written about that haven't come down to us. I myself experienced a strange event that could be interpreted as ghostly or hallucinatory, & I'm the sole source for the claim. I know it happened, but no other source in the world can back me up on it. We have to work with data we have, not data we claim we "should" have.

I was a strong atheist, until one night,in which I had a dream, and what a dream it was. If you would of had that dream, you would believe. Take my word for it, iam an English man. And if you don't believe after that, nor would you believe the prophets. The stupidity of faith

“Because of the way I’m wired, I’m a natural doubter. I doubt everything.” -Mike Licona 1:18:23 Clearly… 50:44 52:31 57:15 58:43 1:25:23 1:26:44

It doesn't matter how unlikely the natural explanation is, it's always going to be more likely than magic 🤷‍♂️🤔

Licona says it's a matter of the way we look at the evidence. This is really an admission of the weakness of his position. Flat earthers also make claim this to be the case.

@nunomartins2209

Жыл бұрын

Flat Earthers dont claim its the way u look at the evidence lmao u either have a objective look at the evidence or u dont

I have hallucinations every night - it's called DREAMING

@jamesboyle7163

4 жыл бұрын

Start a religion! No taxes!

@Sportliveonline

3 жыл бұрын

write a book on demons and hell

Listening to Licona is like the opening scene of Better Call Saul when Jimmie McGill gave that bad legal defense to the college students.

Anecdotes typically mean no substance or evidence of anything

How you can extrapolate Paul's whacky belief in a personal ressurection to evidence for Christ's physical resurrection is beyond me. Notice how Licona surreptitiously turns Paul's word "come" into the word "return". It is clear Paul thinks Jesus will come down to earth but he never couches this event as a return, ever! Licona is reading the gospel story back into Paul and using it to interpret Paul.

@jayd4ever

3 жыл бұрын

yes if you only use the accepted epistles of paul he uses words the coming of lord or revelation of the lord instead of return but that because the people he was talking too probably never saw jesus on earth as most of them were from greece and turkey they would see jesus physically for the first time when he comes down from heaven and at this time he uses the word coming for titus too but didnt mean titus didnt exist before his arrival to paul

@ghostriders_1

3 жыл бұрын

@@jayd4ever really that makes zero sense. If they never saw or heard Jesus it would be incumbent on Paul to explain the life and teaching of Jesus to them. That he doesn't is inordinately strange & Christians cannot see it. Bart Ehrman has his own problems with reading Paul. He frequently paraphrases Paul as referring to the return or second coming of Jesus when he never does. He hides this information from his audience. A lot of people for different reasons read things into Paul that simply are not there.

@ghostriders_1

3 жыл бұрын

@@jayd4ever Titus: that is a very silly analogy, Titus's existence is, and was not in question and as far as I know, no one expected Titus to return to earth after his death! Is that really the best you've got?

@dan4lau

2 жыл бұрын

@@ghostriders_1 I think you know an enormous amount more about this than I do, but I agree with what you've said. I see this constantly in the historicity argument... the assumption that the people Paul talks about who also appear in the gospels are... well I don't know how to put it but the assumption is that Paul got those names from the gospel story... which hadn't been written yet, whereas to me it's equally probable that the gospel writers just lifted these names from Paul and created disciple characters around them. I could be wrong, but I find it terribly hard to believe that Paul is aware of the stories about Jesus' life and teachings, since he almost never refers to them specifically. Here is a man you believe had an earthly ministry, made rulings on things like divorce, brotherly love and taxes, you believe this man is the saviour of all mankind, literally the most important person who ever lived, but what he said and did while alive has no importance to you when writing to your congregations. I just don't buy it. With all he knows about just how unreliable the gospels are, I have no idea why Ehrman clings to the historicist position. OK, now I pray I've made some iota of sense.

@ghostriders_1

2 жыл бұрын

@@dan4lau Daniel I agree with what you say but I don't think any credible historicist thinks that Paul lifted names from the Gospels as even they concede they were all written 20 years after the demise of Paul. I tend to think that any one Paul mentions, apart from Jesus is a real version of a real person. Mark however is a different kettle of flesh! Anyone he mentions ie either fictional with a symbolic name or a fictional version of a real person ie Cephas.

Plausibility and Explanatory Power is pretty much the essence of bayesian statistics. I dont think Licona understands that his preferred method of hypothesis testing is just Bayesian analysis with different names

Paul is the only outsider to switch sides... supposedly. ;-)

@kylexinye1990

3 жыл бұрын

The Doctor Well, and James and his brothers.

@jayd4ever

3 жыл бұрын

some say pilate became christian and even some from herod household

Does Licona actually believe the things that come out of his own mouth?

I think Mike gets lied to a lot, because people will know he'll believe them. He's obviously quite gullible.

@mistylover7398

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty much 🤷‍♂️

Thank you Mike you really help me feel comfortable in my atheism.

Ghost sightings ? My goodness where do these people get their thinking from ?

I cannot listen to a grown man defending magic being real.

@johnfrench6302

2 жыл бұрын

Soooo.... Mike says that a dead person's "spirit" (which is already in heaven) will be reunited with the dead flesh (magically made whole again) and the two parts will be returned to heaven. How old will this dead person's body be ? Personally I would not like to spend eternity in the body that had just let me down.

@paulrichards6894

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnfrench6302 its not something we should think or worry about.....its nonsense

@mistylover7398

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnfrench6302 agreed

@mistylover7398

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulrichards6894 pp

@paulrichards6894

2 жыл бұрын

@@mistylover7398 pp??

Both are very gentlemen. I like Mike though I am a non-believer.

1:13:18 scientists saying the big bang happened once or was unique does not mean the big bang is the absolute beginning, or that there was "nothing" before that. He's assuming the singularity appeared out of nothing, but nobody knows that. He's conflating things.

Mike you are so frustrating. You try and make us believe in debates that the supernatural exist by bringing anecdotes about ghosts, flying objects and tall stories about about a woman and a dead friend. Some observations that I cant be the only person to notice? A) Why are these in bed visions always at the time of night when the brain is in-between being sleep and awake and we know that's the time the brain makes up dreams that seem very real? why not see her during the day at the office? B) How the heck if it was so utterly scary an event, that she not scream the house down and be a jabbering wreck seeking comfort ? no, for some spooky reason after seeng the devil in the first person..............she goes back to sleep? sorry that doesn't seem legit....... C) Why are all these events never recorded in any way by any medium for scrutiny afterwards? Everyone has phone with great quality cameras, but nope , they must be really clever these ghosts. D) When asked if she knew the girl by her dad she didn't immediately go, "yeah and funnily enough I saw her in a vision with the devil last night" but nope, she just asks why? Then to tie things neatly up she , in the presence of the Devil himself, decides its a great moment to check what time it was? And of course she already is a believer in the devil. Why is it that in these situations people only see the iconography of the culture they got brought up in? Why don't Christians see Lord Vishnu? Why don't Hindus see Jesus? Go figure..... E) Why, when always trying to give examples of what would constitute reasonable evidence, they are scenarios that have NEVER happened and never DO happen . Your tactic is clear , to say that even if missing ashes on the very day of David Koresh predicted 3 years before , then we must accept the supernatural explanation , and if not, we are the unreasonable people, despite the point Richard made which was someone could have conspired to have them moved/stole/destroyed whatever. These are plausible as they happen in real life all the time, your explanations are asking us to be gullible.

@countvanbruno182

3 жыл бұрын

Even if we accept that these paranormal "sleep phenomena" are real it still doesn't prove the resurrection. He is grasping at straws here.

Dr Carrier's argument is highly convincing, well done Rick.

Cross examination at 46:00

@kylexinye1990

3 жыл бұрын

Tyler Go Jackets!

These debates always bring up page count as if it were a measure of quality or authority. (Having published books, I tell you I can make your book any length I want; Ehrman even mocks one guy for producing long books of drivel.) Around 1:21:50 they unzip and compare their thesis length in an academachismic cred-off.

If Licona's story about the poor little boy that was run over was compatible with his arguments, then the fact that the boy was reported to have come back to life three days later would be perfectly acceptable.

@yuunoaboi21

9 ай бұрын

Not really because the man tried to kill himself if anyone beleived the boy died and came back id imagine the father wouldnt try to kill himself

"Everything, I doubt." Yeah, okay. 👌

See book "Slaughter of the Dissidents".

How many real historians accept the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, Mike!? 👀👀👀👀👀

pheww the 2010 is showing. At least one person owns starships now. 😉 But they are just called that. The design is capable of two-way interplanetary travel without disposing of any parts but definitlely not interstellar travel, at least not without dieing en-route.

I'm out at 11 minutes. This guy is worse than Craig. For the love of sanity

Both come to this with modern day knowledge of what happens in the real world and how cults work. One of them is making an exception for their religion.

@floydthomas4195

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, Carrier is really lying to himself.

@Jared-ss3jx

2 жыл бұрын

@@floydthomas4195 lol, I hope you are joking

@floydthomas4195

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jared-ss3jx I am not lol, why would i be. Carrier is considered the biggest crank in the new testament academia, to call him fringe would be an insult to fringe people. Also he is a convicted sexual offender, who tried to trade recomendation letters for sex. Following that, he is perma banned from every major atheist conference as well as having 0 chances of being a professor anywhere so the only thing left for him is to be a professional bloger.

@Jared-ss3jx

2 жыл бұрын

@@floydthomas4195 He doesn't have a religion

@Jared-ss3jx

2 жыл бұрын

@@floydthomas4195 also I want to apologize about the arrogant tone of my first comment. It just really annoys me when people say atheism is a religion. But I realized now that you were trying to make a different point

Richard Carrier's argument is not historical. He argues like a lawyer. The question is, "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" You either answer, "yes" or "no" with reasons. But, rather than do that, he goes off on a spin either stating examples of other historical figures claimed to have resurrected or about hallucinating people. This only creates doubt, but neither proves or disproves the question, but just increases the uncertainty about the likelihood of his opponents argument as if to say, "if you have difficulty believing this other stories, why should you believe the Jesus story?" But they're all unconnected. It is like raising the argument in court that because until the incident under litigation was reported, there's never been a robbery in Florida as a defense that the accused person could never have committed the crime of robbery, being that it is said to have occurred in Florida. What sort of an argument is that? He had zero historical evidence that Jesus couldn't have raisen from the dead.

@laurastone6776

Ай бұрын

Great point!!! I think you made some excellent observations

If you don't believe in the supernatural and miracles, then why do you watch a debate and criticize someone who believes miracles happened. I mean what's the point? You are never gonna see evidence and allow the possibility of it having a supernatural cause, so why act like you are listening to the evidence objectively? You've already had your mind made up before the debate started

I cannot understand why anyone would take that book seriously. The more you read it, the more childish it sounds... It is....Absurd.

I can't believe mike thought it would be a good idea to upload this on his own channel lmfao

@nunomartins2209

Жыл бұрын

Same ahahaha

If Jesus resurrected why nobody arrested him again? I'm pretty sure the Romans were good at enforcing the laws back then.

@floydthomas4195

2 жыл бұрын

LMFAO, this is your brain on atheism. I have honestly never laughed at a youtube comment so hard.

@JoelJose-tx3vn

2 жыл бұрын

LOLLLL!!!! pls dont spoil ur image coz this is the most stupidest comment I ever read

@stalemateib3600

6 ай бұрын

If the Roman authorities believed that Jesus Christ was resurrected and standing right in front of them, what would be the point of arresting Jesus? To put Jesus to death again and have Jesus rise from the dead again?

@spiritsplice

5 ай бұрын

@@stalemateib3600 That's just dumb. They wouldn't assume he was resurrected, they would assume he survived his execution.

@stalemateib3600

5 ай бұрын

@@spiritsplice you're raising a separate objection irrelevant to what I was trying to address (though I understand your rationale--under that separate scenario, though, one would wonder about the competence of the Roman soldiers who helped officiate the crucifixion).

Good lord since when have second-hand stories been evidence for anything? This guy's whole argument is telling stories his friends or relatives told him.

29:23 This is the first time i have experienced misophonia, now i get it Carrier enlightens me once again!

Licona: magic..magic...magic..more magic I:zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzźzzzzzzźzzz

'Oh yeah, because Bill Craig and me are like that *crosses fingers*' 🥱

Someone should tell Licona that "psychohistory" is a fictional science invented by Isaac Asimov, it's not an actual thing. 😂

Its funny that both debaters admitted that they had had hallucinations - a well known phenomenon. Yet one of them thinks a reresection occurred.

Mike basically said Jesus is real because I said so

@spiritsplice

5 ай бұрын

That's all they ever do. "Because I want it to be true" and "muh book says".

@laurastone6776

Ай бұрын

That's always the tougher position to be debating from. It's always easier to poke all kinds of holes in the argument and create tons of doubt and then use that as your basis for proving Jesus is entirely false. Honestly I don't think it matters how much evidence there is for Jesus. It will always be insufficient for someone no matter how much evidence there is

As if a literal resurrection is at all plausible in any scenario. And definitely don't talk about the one gospel's account of all the dead in Jerusalem walking the streets at the same time. Is a book with clear fiction likely to contain other clear fiction? Carrier's neurological explanations betray his own clear disbelief in the existence of a historical Jesus at all. So his whole argument is academic. People more commonly write fiction than have hallucinations. The stories being pure myth is exponently the most plausible explanation. Human beings are story telling animals. As if religious movements haven't exploded without myths.

@perpetualmotion357

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely. I feel granting things like the empty tomb and all these resurrected sightings is way more probable that it's just written fiction and not anything like the swoon theory or hallucinations. I suppose those sort of things have to be granted to have any debate at all but imo the probability that it's just fictional stories is No.1. I always cringe when other atheists try to explain it away like any of it actually took place. You're granting the Christian a lot and they know this. It's like falling into a trap.

@eximusic

2 жыл бұрын

@@perpetualmotion357 Yep. I can walk into a book store today and buy many stories. There are no hallucination stores.

What i like about this debate is that it can basically be put as God vs atheism Both come with presuppositions 1. Everything has a logical explanation no matter how improbable because all we know is logic and cant wrap our heads around anything but logic 2. The simple fact of something at some point inevitably being illogical is proof that God exists because from that illogical starting point Everything exists and is intricately designed because the simple fact of existence in and of itself is illogical

@Nick-Nasti

9 ай бұрын

Incorrect. Atheism is just a rejection of a god claim (they did not provide sufficient evidence). It does not presuppose a naturalistic answer to anything. If you make an extraordinary claim, present extraordinary evidence.

Dr. Licona, I appreciate your faith and will. Dr. Carrier, I admire your inteligence and knowledge.

Sure sure, group hallucination, totally implausible, but bodily resurrection, a spontaneous reversal of the arrow of time in the growing entropy of the universe: yeah baby!

The answer is clearly no.... people dont come back from life. And the supernatural has never been proven to even exist.