Cameron Bertuzzi, Jimmy Akin and Dr. Gavin Ortlund took a look at my recent video on a naturalistic explanation for Christian origins. They were very hungry to discredit me. Did they succeed? Buckle up!
original video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErnblS4DDOM
my Minimal Witnesses video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isnl9A50ySY
my Minimal Witnesses blog entry – https://www.bartehrman.com/minimal-witnesses-hypothesis/
Support Paulogia at
http://www.patreon.com/paulogia
http://www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
https://www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/YTALNY19IBC8?ref_=wl_share
Paulogia Merch
https://teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIS4cWaXgWpznjwovFYQBJQ/join
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
https://paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
http://www.twitter.com/paulogia0
http://www.facebook.com/paulogia0
https://discord.gg/BXbv7DS
source
Would love to hear another video about the nails. That was interesting to me.
Responding with a video half as long as theirs is such a power move. Shows how much they waffled and didn't get the assignment lol.
this trio are never going to be your pals or supporters ..do not waste your effort on them..
The three apologists should try to answer: “Can you explain the existence of the Parthenon without Athena having been born from the forehead of her father Zeus?”
Perhaps they would eventually understand Paul’s argument.
Thank you paul!! Just watched cc last night doing a call in show where they "prove" god with biology. /hey did not, in fact, prove anything. It was basically a two hour god-of-the-gaps-athon. I left hoping someone would do a debunking on them and you sir, did not disappoint 👏.
1:10:00 Paulception! it's Paul, watching Paul, watching Mike Licona talking to Paul!
They just can't help themselves and get so damn petty with not even getting your name right. Christian love and understanding is so fulfilling.
What these guys don't understand is that Paul's thesis is actually more generous than the more likely case: that the Jesus as depicted in the Bible never existed. There likely wasn't a single person named Jesus who said all the things ascribed to him in the Gospels. We know that the biography in the Gospels is fictional since it is a combination of parallelism with the OT and the use of then-common literary tropes. There likely wasn't a single messianic figure that was crucified in the sense that many such people were being crucified for preaching against the Romans, which is compounded by the different crucifixion stories told by Paul and the much later Mark. In short, Paul's stipulation of a single historical person named Jesus who more or less did and said all the things in the Gospels is tremendously generous. In fact, by hypothesizing that Jesus only existed as an idea or dream figure, the naturalistic explanation for Christianity becomes more simple and thus more parsimonious.
Please, Paul, write the book!
I'm liking this more combative Paul.😎
Oh snap! They assembled a team….LMAO
There are tons of easily falsifiable claims made today, that are nevertheless taken as facts and disseminated amongst millions of credulous people. Why do we think fact-checking would have done anything to halt BS in the First Century?
Boy, Cameron loves walking into a lion's den again and again. His ability to recognize a threat appears to have died with his conversion to Catholicism.
To be more serious, I don't understand how apologists decide to argue for their positions and reject arguments against them. I incredibly appreciate your cuts which show them arguing from both sides (explicitly the example where Cameron calls you out for claiming Paul's mental health) because whenever I listen to their full content I see them using the exact style argumentation they refuted 40 minutes prior and I have to sit in frustration alone. Comforting to know I'm not alone in seeing this. Perhaps Cameron will attempt a response once more as he once did with Dr. Loke. It's deja vú
"we are apologists" is an admission they can't be honest
Christian apologists need to use strawman arguments and they did just that.
Ex-mormon here: Paulogia's naturalist explanation of how Christianity could have begun rings pretty plausible to a guy who used to believe in a church built on the (patently dubious) visions of Joseph Smith. There's nothing in first-generation Christianity that wasn't also present in first-generation Mormonism.
It's incredible isn't it, that the most powerful entity in the entire universe can't find a way of communicating the most important message to humanity in such a way that there could be no debate about it!
@36:00 is it not obvious that the panel isn't interested in Truth when none of them contest any points asserted by the other at any point?
You actually sound a little ticked off this time .. not that I blame you but it shows.
So Paul, you are surprised they will use any excuse/lie to debunk your hypothesis, It's there job.
I alway come back to this channel. Great video paulogia!
I don't just have anti-supernatural bias, I'm a downright anti-supernatural bigot! If any deities have any problem with that… you know where to find me.
I don’t concede anything for the sake of argument with a Christian apologist. There’s no good evidence that any personal deity does, or even could, exist. Every other claim, assertion, or posit that might follow is moot without overcoming this hurdle.
Arguing about whether Pinocchio became a real boy or not is pointless if you can’t even establish the existence of the puppet maker.
Well that was a wasted opportunity to test your hypothesis
"So they made their own narrative."
And that is certainly common among religious apologists, isn't it? I talk to people (on YouTube) about this stuff, and it's so very, very common that they just make up whatever they want me to argue, rather than listening to what I actually say.
It's almost like they're so used to just imagining whatever they want that they do that all the time, just as their normal behavior in life. It's frustrating. And I don't have videos where people can make responses doing that. So I can only imagine how frustrating that must be to Paulogia!
If the Bible is true, it should make a claim which does not have a natural explanation, can be proven to be false and everyone fails to prove it is false.
A good example might be giving the orbital mechanics of mars and having the first rover to get there find a rock with the world, “your boy big J was here.”
It’s amazing to me how intellectually dishonest Christian Apologists are. I guess it’s because they don’t have a solid case and have to try and pull at the threads of your abbreviated case to “debunk” you. But, it really is about giving their primary audience a reason to be confident in their beliefs without any evidence. In a way, it’s a compliment to you, Paul!
Classic case of sloppy Christian apologetics. These guys simply demonstrate how poor their critical thinking skills are. Fine example o what religious bias does to reason. No good faith. No intellectual honesty.
Conservatives? Conservative what?
As a former catholic, I would highly recommend the apologetics book Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Carl Keating for an insight into the way apologists like Jimmy Aiken treat scripture and why he might object to your frequent use of the jingle. If you want I'd even send you my copy in the mail.
Not only does Paulogia do a better job academically evaluating the sources and claims in view, he does so with much more charity than his Christian detractors.
You have to give some credits to Jimmy for smoking his pipe publickly.
The Catholic Church allows some smoking for sure, but for the danger of scandalizing some brothers you would expect him to keep it private.
Cameron and company: "time to DESTROY the guy who points out lack of non-holy book sourcing, by accusing him of cherrypicking for not accepting our holy book sourcing of nearly every claim we rely on"
Anyone know exactly when 1 Corinthians 15 was written?
It would be nice to get a date on what scholars generally think
Many people (like Cameron) seem incapable of temporarily adopting another worldview: they cannot imagine interpreting a piece of data (such as the stories in the Bible) in light of different hypothetical background information.
Great video!
I am glad you made this video, @Paulogia. After seeing Cameron's little cope-session, I was concerned that you suck as much as Stuart Skinner.
Thank you for setting the record straight.
I wonder how Cameron feels having contributed absolutely nothing of value to any discussion he's ever been a part of. Why is he even making an effort to have a YouTube channel when he is as useful to any topic as tits on a bull.
A lot of their argument was, "He doesn't agree with me so therefore he's cherry-picking!" Even though their entire argument is insane and doesn't conform to reality.
It never ceases to amaze (and amuse) me how frequently Cameron and his guests miss the mark on so many of these "breakdowns," "demolitions," "pwnings" that it takes no effort to rebut. Half of this video is just Paul going, "actually I granted that." Or "I did mention this point here in this other section."
Cameron, bubbela, if you read this comment, do better.
Quote from Mark Twain: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
I feel like there needs to be some overlapping rule as to why they consider what the Bible says as legitimate evidence
Because they never word it like the Bible says it, therefore it’s true
It can’t be that they willingly lower there standards of evidence if the narrative kind of makes more sense to them is it? Like because these sets of things link together in a way that seems rational in my mind that makes them stronger evidences?
If that’s all it is then I don’t see how they would consider it unreasonable to not find that convincing
Like I wouldn’t make a big deal about someone having such an arbitrary difference in standards of evidence if it just meant they didn’t take a story seriously because to believe it you need to string together several points of weaker evidence in this rational way to make sense of it.
And I wouldn’t keep saying that people are making assumptions about the evidence when I know the evidences are weaker
Whenever I see these conflicts from believers who insist they have carefully considered positions I can’t help but wonder if they are lying about the honesty of their position.
How am I supposed to look at paulogias position and think of it as irrational, in bad faith, not well thought out, or philosophically lazy?
It really seems like Cameron and his peers goals are to drag non believers positions through the mud to seem more credible
Raised from the dead is an easier explanation!!! Wtf