Being a woman who could die in pregnancy, it is very hard to add kindness to people who think I shouldn’t be able to get an abortion. They don’t care if I live or die.
I do get frustrated with Seth sometimes when he talks about how we should be nice to people who disagree with us. I don't care if it qualifies as "tribalism," I think being unkind to people based on their bad words and bad behavior towards us is completely justified. People can't choose whether they were born with a uterus, or dark skin, or an attraction to the same gender... People can absolutely choose how they treat people with those characteristics, and they deserve to be judged about it.
It's a terrible space to live in! I find it horrifying. Pregnancy is dangerous. People forget how many pregnant people died before modern medicine and safe, legal abortions. When folks have been brainwashed to believe that a human person exists at conception, it's nearly impossible to change their minds. Somehow, fetuses are valued more than those who are carrying them. It's ridiculous.
@notfiveo Look at the death rate among women, especially women of color. Pregnancy is still dangerous, & too many women die due to complications of pregnancy and childbirth. There is no deity fixing this with miscarriages. In fact, the deity in the Bible caused miscarriages in Number 5:11-31. The deity killed infants in Exodus 11:5; 12:29-30. Also see II Samuel 12:13-19, when the deity killed David's first son with Bathsheba.
I have been watching Seth's content for 12 years. When I was a teenager looking for answers and now as an adult and I always learn something or receive some food for thought. I love it.
The question of why people start insulting and calling names is an interesting one. I certainly don't think it comes down to the person disbelieving what they're saying or even not having a good argument. It arises from frustration at being unable to convince the other person to see something your way or at least achieve some understanding. This goal can be frustrated for many reasons. You may be wrong, you may have a bad argument, you may not have an effective strategy for communicating with the specific person, or the other person may just be digging in out of obstinance. You could do everything right on your end yet still find yourself feeling stymied to the point that some form of outburst is the only way to vent - so I think the thing to do is manage your expectations of the conversation from the start. Have bite-sized goals for what you want the other person to understand, and have a plan in mind to constructively navigate the conversation or gracefully exit if they don't seem responsive. Or if all else fails, just be ready to say, "Have a good day" and leave the thread. I appreciate the thoughts of the caller, but it's important for all of us - even those who have the most awesome and convincing points :D - to be prepared for the frustration that can lead to name-calling.
My point that I made with Seth was in that frustration from someone else's argument doesn't normally happen if you are coming out of it on the winning side. Once you resort to the name calling without rationality, deep down, you know you've lost. Why resort to that otherwise. Maybe there's a key in tonality too. One who resorts to name calling in jest may be more a believer in their own words than one who resorts to name calling in anger. I'm not dying on this hill, and I admit if I'm wrong, but it is good brain food.
There is NO excuse, justification or rationalization you can provide that supports name-calling of any sort. No one should "need to be prepared" for the frustration that can lead to name-calling because it shouldn't be done in the first place. It is more than an etiquette mishap, it is an etiquette catastrophe. People need to start being taught good manners again. I recommend Emily Post, the last word in both manners and etiquette. In my mother's day, the words "is she a lady or is he a gentleman" didn't need to be asked of someone who was either of those things: the qualities are simply apparent.
@@famousamosisforreal I hope I didn’t come off as nitpicking your call. I don’t think any of us (including me) are experts. But I’ve personally felt the urge to insult/name call people who were pretty clearly just not listening. It’s a silly hill for anybody to die on. 😆 I hope my thoughts were helpful to others as yours was to me. It got the juices flowing on where my frustration comes from
@@maxalberts2003 I wouldn't say anything excuses it. I guess as I went on I wasn't even talking about name-calling itself as much as a gradient of unconstructive conversational behavior we can slip into before we know it (which might have been unclear communication on my part). I personally don't think I've called people names, but I've had moments I'm not proud of. Having boundaries you simply won't cross on principle is good, but it's also important to recognize where you have tendencies to derail and self-regulate.
@@maxalberts2003 Justification? No. But rationalization? There most certainly is. I absolutely agree with the sentiment that everyone should be more concerned with having a decent and gentle impact in social interactions, but never doubt that people can rationalize essentially _anything_ inside their own heads. That doesn't mean that the logic they use is sound, and it also doesn't mean that they are amenable to corrections of potentially faulty logic. Still, as long as they find it acceptable, they will accept it. That being the case, you have to be understanding of the fact that lines of reason don't follow a straight path from A to B in everyone's head, and you most certainly need to be prepared to be engaged by that kind of response or you're setting yourself up to be needlessly frustrated.
"Arguments on the Internet don't change minds..." They may not change the mind of the person you're arguing with, but as I often point out in the midst of the argument, "I'm not really talking to *you* - I realize that you might be so entrenched in your worldview that there's no way we could reach each other. I'm talking to those *reading* this discussion. Many may not be as dichotomized as we are - and might be swayed by either argument. THAT'S who I'm speaking to." ...and I've received several friend requests from people who did just that - listened to our discussion and liked my argument better. It's not always about the one-to-one.
It has on occasion changed mine! I like listening to different perspectives and when verifiable facts are offered I will research further. As a truth seeker I’m looking for truth and it doesn’t matter the method of delivery. A speech, a lecture, a book, a radio or tv discussion, the internet is only another tool to carry information.
Seth, you and your wife have always been an inspiration to me. I always find your videos interesting and I am glad that you stay so true to yourself and you are able to differentiate between Christianity and individual Christians. Much love you you guys .
Seth is my hero!!! I’ve commented that many times, and I couldn’t end the call without telling you that. I am Joe from Pennsylvania on the show, thanks so much for taking my call Seth. You articulate things in a way that I couldn’t begin to dream of. You’ve been so instrumental in my life over the last year or so, I honestly can’t thank you enough. You are amazing and so is your channel. From the bottom of my heart I can’t tell you how much what you are doing means to me.
Around the 28 minute mark was the most polite way of calling you (and me,54) old man! I love when these young bloods think we're old, but they're gonna wake up tomorrow and be 50!
I am 73 and amazed how sclerotic and fossilized some of the brains of some "young'uns" are. I try to follow the example of my father, who at 95 when he died was more progressive and forward-thinking, than many so-called liberals today.
I listened to that conversation, and it reminded me of other conversations I’ve heard with Ermin. He arrogantly laughs and proclaims that every serious scholar agrees with him. Thanks for identifying where the conversation went off the rails for you. I felt it too. Love your work Seth.
I agree with you. That laughter though.. it was just cringe in my opinion. Not on Seth's part, though. I could tell he was doing his best. Idk how he was able to keep his composure, I would have been sorely tempted to end the meeting if someone acted so arrogantly and laughed at my concerns the way Bart laughed at Seth. But, that's why I don't do interviews or public speaking for a living lol... Seth is far more gracious than I.
I don't always agree with Seths take on everything, but so what? I agree with his atheism and I respect him personally enough to give him the chance to change my mind. Sometimes he does!
I happen to agree with seth, wholeheartedly. I know plenty of Christians, and it's just a Seth puts it- most of them are good people. I must also admit most of the people I know (other than certain family members, and some friends) don't know that I'm an atheist. I mostly keep it to myself. That being said, situations are different depending on where you live and what you do. Many religious folk can be hateful, arrogant, hypocritical, judgmental etc.
Most of the Christians you encounter on platforms such as this are going to be in attack mode. They are defending their world view, and they are accustomed to heated debates. Therfore, if you are judging all Christians by the few you encounter in debates, you're "not seeing the forest for the trees", as the saying goes.
@@andrewc1205 How do you feel about the fact that most of your "folk" can be completely open & honest about their beliefs, but that you feel that you have to hide your position on these issues. I'm not trying to be judgemental as perhaps you feel, that the price you would have to pay for your honesty, would be too high. _Just curious._
I was 16 when I left the mormon church, and I was so angry at everyone that had any part of my indoctrination. That anger, especially directed at my parents, has very slowly lessened. I'm 34 now and only recently let that anger go. My parents no longer attempt to convert me back and I think I'm finally able to cordial conversation about religion. Of course, my mother still has it in her mind that I'm mormon, no matter what I say; but it doesn't hurt me to let her think that.
@@IheartDogs55 at which time they are not f-bombs, but carefully placed Fucks. F bombs are the indiscriminate throwing the word around to the point of using it like an um. Which the person I am referring to did. My opinion and definition.
I think Bart Ehrman has made his arguments re Paul knowing Jesus's brother and what NTwords attributed to Jesus could reasonably have been spoken by a first century Judean so many times.... that he forgets some people have not heard the arguments in full.
Good video, greatly enjoyed listening to it. I feel a bit torn, because to be honest, I've thought in the same way as the guy who sent that hate mail. I've heard stories of families being torn apart, people being genuinely harmed, and atrocities being committed all in the name of christianity, and it's like...how can you not feel angry and hateful over that? I'll never forget the story of that 12 year old girl who got kicked out of her house by her fundamentalist family and was found crying at school after hours because she didn't believe hard enough. I read articles about human rights being taken away even today in this country, and the idea that we may one day live in a real life version of "The Handmaid's Tale" isn't totally out of the realm of possibility. We need to be angry, we need to be willing to fight back, and I have come to the conclusion that honestly, I would rather die fighting that kind of oppression than live enslaved in the kind of world those right-wing types work to create. It takes a lot of effort to not lose myself in that hatred. I need to remind myself constantly that there are all sorts of good, well meaning and powerful groups fighting that possibility. The Satanic Temple, Freedom from Religion Foundation, and even on the religious side you have "Christians against Christian Nationalism". On some deep level, even if it's easy to forget about sometimes, and as bleak as the days are lately, I know that love and acceptance will triumph in the end and the fundamentalist nationalists will not win.
The letter was pretty extreme but I don't think that many of us disagree with the core point, it really isn't that long ago at all that we were being murdered in the street for our views all over the world (and it still happens today in some places) and while the answer isn't to cut off the head of every christian, it is vitally important that we don't forget that. You say that "love and acceptance will triumph in the end" but it isn't a forgone conclusion, it is only so as long as people continue to ensure it is so. I hate the bible, I hate christianity, but I don't hate christians because there's little point to that, the ones who are truly terrible people would be that way regardless of their religion and the rest are either victims of circumstance or their belief is so weak it's unlikely to ever manifest in a way that has profound negative effects. Or put another way: Don't hate the playa, hate the game. =)
I'm in full agreement with your criticism of Bart Ehrman. He knows a lot about the specific subjects he's studied. But he seems to laugh off, ridicule and strawman criticism different positions, and fill in the gaps in his knowledge with things he makes up. I may agree with him on most conclusions, but not always on how he got to them.
Having read some of his books, and watched a lot of his videos, I have to say that he has a very well reasoned set of positions. And as he has learned more over the years, he has shifted his views on certain subjects. At least in his books, I don't find him making things up at all, and haven't really noticed it in his seminars either.
@@tonyshelver4931 Well yeah, but in those he isn't put on the spot and speaks on what he actually knows. And I have already admitted he does a great job when doing so. The problem is when he veers off it, such as when discussing mythesism. Godless Engineer has done some running through with Richard Carrier analysing his recent interviews on it which may give you more insight in what I am saying. His instincts when meeting contrary opinions really do take him to ridicule, laughing off and strawmanning the actual positions. Which is too bad, because it means an opponents strongest peer reviewed evidence does not even get given serious consideration, let alone made a strong case against. Thus impeding progress.
Hi Seth and thanks for keeping me company during work. You really provide a window into another world/society for non-Americans and I feel like you are a very kind man.
Clobbering someone over the head with ideals won't change anyone's mind. In many cases, they'll be emboldened, as will others who share their belief. The only effective way to enact a change in a person's fundamental belief is through catharsis and internal reflection.
16:15 holy crap. I hope that was a troll email because that's some terrifyingly unhinged mass shooter manifesto material right there. Hello, FBI? Yea that guy right there.
The interview with Dr Bart was a bit frustrating. I've heard him talk about Jesus existing in other interviews and he was very convincing. It seems he just didn't want to talk about it. I'd love to see y'all hash it out one of these days I agree with the fact Jesus didn't claim to be God. The things you mentioned could apply to a self-proclaimed prophet as well
Well, I'm a "follower" of Spinoza's and Einstein's god, so I'm an atheist for all matters and purposes of this discussion, and I'm living in germany where we have essencially two christian denominations of nearly equal size, catholics and evangelicals, the latter being members of the very church kickstarting protestantism and founded by Martin Luther himself about 500 year ago not far from where I'm living. I never got judged for not believing in a personal god even just once in my life, and in daily life religion plays not a role anyways - people can know each other for years without knowing about each other's religious convictions, secularism isn't attacked, and in regard to dogma the overwhelming majority of catholics are far more moderate than one would expect considering the public church policies - in fact they feel largely enstranged from their higher clerics and are in support of far reaching reforms, espeacially since they are disgusted by the way cases of child abuse are handled by the leadership (many are nominally leaving the church out of protest and keep practicing on their own), and anti-science bullshit isn't part of the catholic church's program anyways. Most of the more serious catholics tend to vote for the conservative party of germany (CDU - "christ-democratic union") which shouldn't be equated with the GOP: In a country which has plenty of experience with fascism as well as stalinism the political landscape is reliably calibrated so to speak, and conservatism is on the right but close to the political center - its US counterpart would be the democrats. Unfortunatly we have an actual counterpart to the GOP here as well, founded not even 9 years ago. It's a literal GOP clone and gets rightfully treated as an extremist and neofascist party which gets rejected by 90% of society - it's not conservative but reactionary and serves as a pool for all those who are opposed to democratic values; market radicals and randroids, conspiracy theorists, contrarians and science deniers, reactionaries, homophobes, sexists, racists and outright neonazis (which contribute a considerable number to the party), and both main churches are explicitly opposed to this party. The evangelicals of Luther's church aren't correlated with any poitical party at all, they can range from the right-centrist conservatives already mentioned well into the progressive left, but for the most part they might be slightly left of the center. They tend to view their evangelical US brethren and their tendency to extreme right and reactionary ideas with utter disbelief: Creationism and biblical literalism get rejected as the attempt to equate god with the words of men who merely tried to conceptionalize him - in their view the bible is "inspired" by god in the same sense an extremly untalented painter can get inspired by a beutiful tree - the tree exists, but because of his limitations the painter will be far off in his depictions and include factual and technical errors; as not even the best painter can squeeze the tree into the canvas even the most wise will never squeeze god into words. The church doesn't push purity culture, it doesn't push abstinence only, it doesn't push prosperity gospel or healing by laying on hands, no speaking in tongues, no anti-abortion stances, and women are equal to men (the church was led by women in the past). There's not even a church policy discriminating against homosexuals - same sex couple marriages get performed, and even homosexual pastors living in same sex marriage got ordained. There is a small minority of believers of other churches who match all the defining features of the bigoted fundamentalist - and this tiny minortiy of christian churches belongs to cults imported from the US.. What I actually mean to say: I'm certain the guy who sent the mail attacking christians in the worst way possible (and furthering the persecution complex seemingly prevalent in the US - I never met a christian here who felt persecuted) had some bad experiences with christians, but it's not caused be the latter's identity of being christian, it's caused by their particular approach. The US fundies this guy is speaking about aren't representing all christians in the US, let alone in the world. The christian extremism many people seem to take for granted when it comes to christians is a largely us-american phenomenon and appears as strange to the overwhelming majority of for example european christians as it does to atheists..
I really love this video. As an atheist, I get so sick of seeing other atheists just acting superior and claiming that all Christians are the same. I'll see things like, "I've never heard of an intelligent Christian" and all I can think is that I have met plenty that are way smarter than I am. For example a close friend of mine is 1 year away from her PHD in bio-chemistry, she has multiple masters degrees in other subjects as well, and she is a Catholic. When I look into what some of the "I don't see smart religious people" brand of atheists they work at Mcdonalds or walmart (not to bash folks who work at any fast food joint or super market) or something with no degrees, no college history, barely a high school diploma. don't get me wrong, I can't afford to go to college and I don't have any degrees either, but at least I'm not so pretentious to act superior and talk shit without backing it up. These guys constantly use the no true scotsman fallacy as if their life depended on it. It's not all religious folks, it's not all atheists, it's just a very vocal group of folks, and it gets old. I know wonderful people from both religious and non religious backgrounds. I know terrible people on both sides as well. My dad is a bigoted religious man, my cousin is an asshole atheist who thinks violence is an acceptable response to creationists and anti-vaxxers. MY mom is a Christian and she is a wonderful person and I don't hate her or treat her like shit because of it, and obviously as an atheist I have had to make some atheist friends because otherwise I wouldn't have many friends because most religious folks in my area (not all but most) are vehemently against godless folks and will try to save my soul at all costs. Every time someone offers to pray for me I say, "thank you, but it's cool. You can pray later when I'm not around. I'd personally rather not have anyone lay their hands on me for any reason and I don't have the time to spare to sit here while they attempt to heal my soul that I don't believe exists so I can spend time in a magical place that I don't believe exists to spend time with their deity of choice that I don't believe exists. Have a wonderful day, se you around." I love seeing the more positive discussions where folks ignore the trolls from all sides and just treat each other like human beings. Sure I enjoy sharing the occasional meme that might get under someone's skin just because it made me laugh, but I prefer reading decent conversations whenever they happen, though they are incredibly rare to stumble across unless you dig for hours, and I don't have that much time to spend seeking it out. Again, fun video and I love these discussions. Keep up the amazing work, and once I have the money to spare I hope I can afford your book. I'm very interested in giving it a read.
Discussing in the comments here is really a good training. It helped me to not only learn to argue my posidion, refining it in the dozens of times I repeated them (and not copied them), it also brings you to understand your OWN position better, to harden it - or to find you have to adapt it. My impression is that insults make no sense, quite the opposite, they affirm your opponent you are an a**hole, and that all your arguments can be discarded blindly. I go for what the people tell me, and then go through THEIR points, one by one, and rip them apart. When they simply change topic or start insulting you, you have "won". Then they get the "psychological broadside" that usually silences them. - you bring me nothing but slogans from someone else, cannot explain them, let alone defend them. That can be learned and must be trained. You can do that - but have to want to. - start to think what you think and why. To know what your standpoint is and be able to formulate it, you have to question it - question YOURSELF. - when you want to persuade, you need to be able to bring supporting facts and not just claim things - and the claims are from someone else. - Learn to listen and to react on what other people say. That makes your impact on the other more powerful. - when you want to excel, then first clarify the definitions, so that you do not talk past each other with the same words, and then start with finding the COMMON ground, that what you agree upon. Then you can start bashing each other's head in - when it is still worth it, when it has not already become so little that it ain't worth it. That is the next new formulation... ;-))
Feel free to criticize that, only that makes it better.
about the toxic email. I can honestly say I think the same in regards to christianity but I realize that this kind of thinking is wrong and is counter to anything I want and strife for. Watching people with a lot of self-control who can articulate themselves rather then threat physical violence or go right to name-calling is helping me in keeping my mental stability and focus on the larger goal. It would be great if religious people would "come around" realizing their folly and the insanity of mass-control, brainwashing and indoctrination but it probably will never happen, not without drastic steps which would immediately neutralize the banner under which they were performed (life and equal rights for everybody, freedom of choice and speech etc)
We cannot discount the place that Scientology played in Will Smith's actions. He said it in his faux apology, that his god makes him a conduit "for peace". He believes his actions are always righteous because God is on his side.
Part of me felt so sad for the angry atheist. He must have suffered seriously from a very young age. He’s filled with rage and pain. Sadly he may never get the help he clearly needs.
Seth: Please see Joyce Carol Oates's brilliant novel, SON OF THE MORNING. You will love it. She dedicates it to "One Whose absence is as palpable as any presence."
I find it rather amusing, especially within the US, that Christians have been very quick to criticize Muslims for not disavowing and being critical of Muslim bad actors... Yet it seems almost infinitely rare that any of them would have the same sort of criticism of Christian bad actors. I understand it's very difficult to point that mirror inward and face ones own flaws, but it truly is one of the best ways to improve.
I was hoping for more detailed answers from Dr Ehlman, with that said I heard him responding from a lens of not supporting The Bible as a factual book and more of a book based on belief. Which speaks volumes. I saw nothing wrong with your interviewing approach. You asked the questions, if the guest deflects the question that life. I appreciate your reasonable mature approach. I applaud your platform and open mindedness. Thank you!
What you do is so important... I hope with all my heart that I meet you in person some day... they always so don't meet your heros... you are very much my hero... and I would be thrilled to shake your hand...
boooooooooring..... Should of shown a nipple or SOMETHING..... uuughhh disclaimer: Naughty sense of humour, I appologize incase it was in poor taste. I'm still learning how you humans do comedy. My comedy books were somehow perceived as holy books. I mean I genocide the whole planet but one family and I told that family to be be fruitful and multiply. LOL the mom, and sisters all got gang banged to repopulate the world AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHH oh shit i'm so funny!
I agree that people don’t resort to name calling and insults because they lack conviction and know they are wrong. This is not limited to theists - Matt Dillahunty knows without a doubt his arguments are valid and logical but he gets to a point where he lacks emotional regulation so when he gets frustrated he resorts to name calling and insults instead of effective communication. It is not about being wrong it’s about lacking self-control and emotional regulation.
I went with longer hair. I wanted this hair-style as a teen-ager, sure. But, I'm not trying to reclaim anything about my youth. I'm better together now in my 50's.
Have to say.... this came to mind. “It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.” Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, 'Good Omens.'
I would like to say that I have not done any of the more vitriolic things that some atheists do...but I would be lying. This going to be long and likely come off as a rant, something I should probably send into Lewis Black, but I might as well start here, given the topics in the video. I have definitely been in that phase of deep utter hatred of religion, starting with Christianity and then including the rest. I was able to recognize that the bulk of hatred was directed more towards the organization and how it was always exploited by the absolute worst, but that did not quite stop me from spreading that hatred to everything else about religion, especially about Christianity. It took me quite a while to get past it, at least to the point that I do not get easily triggered over it, though I am not as successful in that regard as I might be making it sound - obviously better than before but still clearly a work in progress. It really took me just pulling myself out of that world, not so much seeking out other atheists (and I certainly was not one at the time) but just getting out of that part of the country where every other billboard is a "Hell is Real" or anything related (there were even trucks, both pickup and semi, that have those signs on the trailer walls or their own signs fixed to the truck). Bit by bit, one by one, I met people who were Christian or whatever else that were genuinely good people. Some of them were...I would not say "fervent" in their belief but did try to do genuine good in line with it - and by "genuine," I mean, "good that the vast majority, faithful or not, would agree on." We rarely talked about faith, and the ones that did talk about it did not do so until after I had become an atheist (just cases of coincidental time). I was able to maintain my friendship - or at least amicablility (is that a real word?) - with them, and I was able to get them to accept that while I would never share their religious beliefs, as they as they still tried to do that good that they strive for, then I ultimately do not care about what they believe or not as long as they keep trying to do those good acts. Unfortunately for me, these kinds of Christians and other faithful have been quite few for me. For every one of these good ones, there were, are, and could be anything from 10 to 10,000 bad ones, the ones that you might find at a sermon by Locke. This is predominantly why I am still working on building that thick skin. It has gotten to the point that when I hear someone declare that Christianity (or any religion, but Christianity is what I hear the most often) should be the law of the land, I ask, "Well then, are you going to make all of the [insert religion's name] holidays full public holidays that get us out of work during them and with full pay for the days? No? Then keep [insert religion's name] the f^^^ out of the government." To me, an encouragement of what could be described as laziness is a sign of the institution in question (be it government or religion or whatever) actually trying to improve your lives. Am I an @$$hole at least some of the time? Yes, especially when it comes to religion. Do I try to be an @$$hole when it comes to religion? No, but I do admit that I fail at not acting like one over religion (or politics, though where I am from, they usually go hand-in-hand) most of the time. It is like what I had to tell my born-again Christian mother when I moved out: "People are people, saints are saints, and @$$holes are @$$holes. All Christianity does is act as a smokescreen for the @$$holes. Actual saints do not use Christianity as their reason for doing good, but @$$holes always use Christianity as their excuse for doing evil. That goes for any other religion you want to bash, but right now, here in the US, all of the biggest @$$holes, the ones with the power to potentially cause the greatest suffering to the most people possible, loudly and very blatantly identify themselves as Christians...and you unquestioningly support them. Why should I or anyone else, atheist or not, ever believe that you care about doing good? To an ever-growing number of people, it is those like you that teach people that there is no greater group of evildoers than Christians, and you wonder why the number of people leaving the faith is continuing to grow." Was it the best thing I could have said? Probably not, but I am certain that it needed to be said, and if my mother needed to hear it, then it might as well come from me.
I'm around the same age and I just let my hair grew out and kept it for half a decade and then last week I got it cut shorter than I ever had (though it will settle at a happy medium now)
On Bart Erhman, and other professor types, I think they have this idea of continuous audience, where something they answer somewhere else can be gestured at vaguely in the now. I listened to the interview and I knew answers he gave, either from his other appearances or a book I read, but he just gestured at them instead of phrasing again. In youtube, for a lot of people this is either the first time they come across an explanation, so they want the full text, or a new phrasing if they have heard it before. That's what annoys me in his interviews, it seems like you have to watch them all in order to get the full picture.
Perhaps in your next interview with Prof. Ehrman you can raise and discuss and grind him on the unsatisfactory answers he gave in the previous interview? I, for one, will certainly watch it. Or maybe you should have a live interview, so we can ask those questions we want elaboration on?
I know I'm commenting a year late, but in my late 50's, I think I was 58, I started and grew out a ponytail that can sometimes reach the top edge of my belt. I called it my "High School Firebird" from the movie American Beauty with Kevin Spacey. I told my wife I can't afford a Firebird, so I'm going with the ponytail! It's a midlife crisis thing. Your hair comments reminded me of it. I still have the ponytail and my wife still loathes it. I fear one night I'm going to wake up with her over me with a pair of garden shears!
I wrote that there is no need for angry discourse. In my mother's day, no one had to ask the question, "Is she a lady or is he a gentleman?" because the issue would never arise. The same goes for these angry ranting letter writers of any stripe. Whatever they are, it is clear what they are NOT: ladies and gentlemen. Just ignore them.
To Bart Erhman’s defense, he did say that he could go into the existence of the historical Jesus but it would take too long. If you want to know what he specifically teaches on it, watch his “How Jesus Became God” on Wondrium. It’s one of his courses with 24 lectures. It’s very well done.
Seth, I was reading stuff from W.E.B.Dubois and he, the scholar that he was making references to Egyptian culture of 1000s of years ago and of Mulattos as being more representative of folks in Africa and Egypt had female and male black skin Pharoahs,who lived way backi when and he was like reading from the like origina text, Greek ancient Greek?
It crossed my mind this morning as I thought about God and is as supposedly His creation and couldn’t help but consider that IF God loves us as He says He does, why didn’t he give us some instructions? And the Ten Commandments if anything should have been given to Adam in the garden of Eden. This would have eliminated the reasons for a flood. That is IF it even happened now? Who would have thought that God and religion would be so confusing and complicated? Aloha 🌺
I also wrote that, like the late, wonderful Edward Gorey, I too hate and fear both the metric and the Dewey Decimal Systems. Tucker Carlson reminds me of dear Gilda Radner's character, Emily Latella, who always opened with "What's this I hear about...?"
Whatever you do, keep clean shaven. Long hair is fine, but I live in Tennessee where everyone has facial hair. They think it makes them manly. Even the woman grow beards.
To the point about "are agnostics atheists?", and your question of, "If you don't know it, how can you believe it?" I have had similar thoughts, and I see where you're coming from but the more I thought about it, it seems to me that belief itself unavoidably *entails not knowing!* Put another way, believing something automatically means you have some amount of doubt or lack of knowledge about it, right? Otherwise one would say they know, rather than believe, right? I remembered hearing someone say this (believing includes doubting / not knowing) back when I was a Christian, and it really bothered me, and I bristled at the idea. But now I think it is accurate. Interestingly, a lot of folks who call themselves believers say they do know, which always makes me wonder why they aren't calling themselves "knowers", but anyway...
“Jesus never claimed he was god.” There are at least two ways to assess that. 1) we don’t know that Jesus ever claimed anything. The quotes in the Bible are unreliable. 2) Some versions of Jesus, according to the gospels, did claim to be god. 3) I agree with the caller and suspect Ehrman meant that what he concludes as the historical Jesus would not have claimed to be god - maybe a messiah ala David. Jesus would have been a Jew and claiming to be god would be the highest blasphemy. That’s not an unreasonable position, but he didn’t explain it that way, so I can understand the pushback
That's an absurd argument. There is no other data to look at other than what is in scriptures and they are quite clear that Jesus claimed to be God. Any counter argument is baseless assumption.
I find it fun to be nice to people who are being mean to me because it really throws them off and it's funny to see their reactions. I'm a security guard and the other night I had a guy that when I looked at him he just said "what the hell do you want?" I smiled back and said "for you to have a great night." He went to say something and then paused because what I said was not the response he was expecting and it was so funny to see the confused look on his face.
I lost 99% of my respect for Bart Ehrman when he said 'Mythicists just want to tear down Christianity'. Sounds exactly like religious people who say 'Atheists just want to sin' like comments. The moment you claim to know what's in someone's head better than they do you've lost. Makes you wonder if he can hold that kind of belief so irrationally what others is he and can you then trust anything he claims.
@@corytheviking5239 Ehrman worries more about his teaching position and keeping his old books relevant than he does having an honest conversation about Jesus mythicist research.
About intellectuals and academic types in general.. They(academic types) reach a point in their careers(usually later in their careers) where they surrender to the idea that they have figured out all that can be figured out and they basically shutdown to any new adventures.
On Barts "Jesus never claimed to be god", He is referencing the synoptic gospels Marc, Matthew and Luke where no reference is made. It is only in John written many decades later where it seems Jesus is calling himself devine. Bart's position is that John deviated so much from Marc that it isn't an accurate account of the historical Jesus. Also, I agree that he was strawmanning what mythicists say about a historical Jesus. Carrier and Price both state that they hold a historical Jesus as a valid possibility just that they don't find enough evidence for it to be convincing. Carrier explicitly states that a mythical Jesus would be a bad argument to disprove christianity. It's my understanding after watching many Erhman lectures that 2 of his strongest arguments for historicity is a reference by Paul about James the brother of Jesus and that the gospels writers wouldn't bother to write about a failed prophet unless it was based on a real person. Both still leave me skeptical.
To the guy at 50:20 promoting different types of atheists, I think that's a terrible idea and I'll tell you why. First, an atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in deities I think you could even say an atheist is someone doesn't find any evidence to support a god belief. But to complicate matters with agnostic atheism and so on, serves no purpose but to obfuscate any conversation or debate with a theist. I was recently involved in one such conversation with a theist who was playing g word games and semantics, and I was trying to keep the conversation focused on a point, and asked him several times why he believes in god. He ignored the question, and resorted to babble on about unrelated issues, and in the middle of it he injected the phrase, something like "I don't even know what an atheist is, there are so many kinds". Well i didn't take the bait. I didn't allow him to open up a pointless rabbit hole to go down. I assumed he was making up a needless distraction. Christopher Hitchens famously said in his debate with William Lane Craig, when Craig tried that nonsense tactic against Hitchens, is that he didn't thought that the guy who popularized the term 'agnostic' didn't do atheists any favors. I agree with Hitchens. It's a bullshot term. Atheists don't believe in gods. Let the burden of proof lie with the theist.
NO NO NO FRIGGIN MULLET!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Yeah I was really frustrated and disappointed with Erhman too…I was very surprised with a lot of his content because it was so off the rails.
The thing is I have Christian friends who are wonderful, caring people. They try to live out the gospel as best they can. But for the most part, they are moderate to liberal Christians and not fundamentalists. I have to be honest though, I personally can't stand conservative evangelicals or fundamentalists of any stripe be they Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Christian or whatever. In my view fundamentalists are always reactionary, look upon women as second class citizens, and are generally a bane to society. Of course, I am sure that there are some exceptions to that, but overall their worldview sucks. I wouldn't mind as much if they didn't keep trying to cram their beliefs down everyone's throat. Texas is a prime example of what happens when Christian crazies take over. They banned abortion, are banning books, are implementing anti-gay/ trans legislation. I could go on and on. They truly want a theocracy. So I really can't help but take a dim view of them. But yet there are many who aren't like that. I just wish they would speak up more. Anyway, that's my two cents worth. (By the way, I think you would look good in a goatee. But not with longer hair.)
The biggest problem I have with the “loving, caring” Christians is they tend not to call out the problem Christians, and they vote the same way, anyway, so if I never meet them (and the vast majority I won’t), I won’t be able to tell a significant difference.
Amen to the hair thinning out at 50!!! 😂😂 Yeah I don't know how anyone can spend most of their day tapping away online. Personally aside from watching a few shows on YT other than that I can't sit still for hours on end with anything on here. I lose interest. Of course I do the usual check email and day to day things we do now online but for the most part I just can't spend hours having a conversation or reading posts. I have to take a nap if I do that kind of time.😂
It's not an "appeal to authority". Because he didn't claim it was so, "BECAUSE" they believe. Bart has on many other occasions explained his reasoning, but usually in like 20 minuets chunks on debates. I feel like Bart didn't explain that point, because he couldn't. That's kinda like saying "well tell me why radiometric dating is right." In five minuets. Not easy to do.
How refreshing to see someone not only admit they could have done something better, but to also thanked his audience for pointing out his flaws. Yeah, imagine someone like Hannity saying 'I was wrong about a certain drug' instead of saying 'I've been saying all along how bad it was'.
Even thought I disagree with Ehrman about the historicity of Jesus, I think his defence of Jesus earns him brownie points with Christians. So, in a way, his stance gives him useful credibility where it matters. Ehrman was highly influential in my personal de-conversion long before I thought about the strange circumstance of the Jesus store.
The easiest way to get your foot into activisim is to go to the school board meetings or to city council meetings. See what your neighbors are up to and set out to stop any rulings that infringe on your rights.
Seth, I am no sycophant for any you tuber but I am a fan of yours. It's about time somebody questioned Ehrman that is not an apologist. Yes, be kinder to the centrist. I agree. You are the most level headed that I see in the atheist community. That must take a ton of restraint. I was amazed at all the holes in Ehrman's discourse with you yesterday. Especially the Jesus never claimed to be God comment. "I know thousands of scholars that agree with me" Ehrman says. I will stop here. Seth, you are just the best. Thank you for taking the risk to your channel by squeezing old Bart a bit!
I couldn't even finish the video. Ehrman's attitude through nearly every second I managed to watch was grating at the best of times. When you see him discuss free form, it becomes pretty obvious why other channels like Paulogia have him respond to small chunks at a time and edit heavily. It's clear he doesn't like to be challenged, and his kneejerk response to it is very disappointing for someone that rests their identity on being a scholar. Correct answers aren't offended by questions. Interrupting your host by repeatedly shouting "NO!" like a child is terrible optics when it could've been simply corrected at the end of the statement like any real misunderstanding would be.
@@PsychoSpecter Really......I often wonder what a polygraph would reveal when Ehrman gets that jumpy. Bart said he writes books for broad audiences and other books for deep scholars. I have not seen those scholarly books offered....have You? Bart has a lot to lose if he came too clean. But, I do find Ehrman useful if I have to combat scripture and what Bart calls Christology. Cheers!
For some reason my comment wasn't saved. Here it is again: Like the late, wonderful Edward Gorey, I too am opposed to both the Metric and the Dewey Decimal Systems. Carlson reminds me of dear Gilda Radner's character, Emily Latella. "What's this I hear about...?"
23:55 ish - Arguing online. "You couldn't have an argument with Lord de Worde. Not a proper argument. An argument, from 'arguae', meant to debate and discuss and persuade by reason. What you could have with William's father was a flaming row." - Pratchett. What we often have online is a flaming row. An actual argument is not a bad thing. It's just a discussion, admittedly sometimes a passionate one, but providing it's attempting to persuade by reason rather than insult there's little wrong with it. The next time you, the reader, are involved in an exchange of opposing views, ask yourself which you're having. An argument or a flaming row.
Seth thanks for being one of the very few voices of Sanity reason and decency out there on either side of the debate I think because we are all humans no two of us will ever agree on everything and I kind of come down on the side of the atheist position myself now but at the same time I was in love with a church for a while that was full of people that I now feel I can't agree with on a lot of things because they are way more conservative than I never going to be but at the same time they were great people and treated me wonderfully so I think we can all treat each other better regardless of whether or not or not we agree on things
Please remember the Easter bunny, Santa, the god of the sky realms nor the devil actually do any thing, it's always people, and we grew up with people, we should cope better with each other, here's to hope🐠🏴☠️
I came away from the Dr Ehrman interview feeling like he gave nothing away- like all his answers were that whole cryptic, secret society crap. I subsequently searched Mike Lacona and found a real gem of a video of him degrading and equating the people that don’t believe Jesus was a real guy to conspiracy theorists and crackpots. I do understand why you (Seth) felt like you needed to move on. B.E.s side of the convo was a dud.
Listening to other atheists calms my nerves. It keeps me going. Thanks!
Same🤗🤗🤗
I am with you 😊👍
Seth has the most amazing tone of voice, I’m so jealous, but I love listening to it
Same 😌
He has a good radio voice, kinda sounds like that coast to coast guy.
Being a woman who could die in pregnancy, it is very hard to add kindness to people who think I shouldn’t be able to get an abortion. They don’t care if I live or die.
I do get frustrated with Seth sometimes when he talks about how we should be nice to people who disagree with us. I don't care if it qualifies as "tribalism," I think being unkind to people based on their bad words and bad behavior towards us is completely justified. People can't choose whether they were born with a uterus, or dark skin, or an attraction to the same gender... People can absolutely choose how they treat people with those characteristics, and they deserve to be judged about it.
It's a terrible space to live in! I find it horrifying. Pregnancy is dangerous. People forget how many pregnant people died before modern medicine and safe, legal abortions. When folks have been brainwashed to believe that a human person exists at conception, it's nearly impossible to change their minds. Somehow, fetuses are valued more than those who are carrying them. It's ridiculous.
@notfiveo Look at the death rate among women, especially women of color. Pregnancy is still dangerous, & too many women die due to complications of pregnancy and childbirth. There is no deity fixing this with miscarriages. In fact, the deity in the Bible caused miscarriages in Number 5:11-31. The deity killed infants in Exodus 11:5; 12:29-30. Also see II Samuel 12:13-19, when the deity killed David's first son with Bathsheba.
@notfiveo For me, the definition of God is, _"a bigger mystery"_ as that's what I hear when anyone offers God up as an explanation for anything.
@@moodyrick8503
Just think of "God" as the Universe.
This is to counter the hate. I ❤ Seth.
You are not alone there
Non-conformist ideas always attract heat, so thx to Seth for drawing some of that heat.
It's gotta go somewhere.
I have been watching Seth's content for 12 years. When I was a teenager looking for answers and now as an adult and I always learn something or receive some food for thought. I love it.
The question of why people start insulting and calling names is an interesting one. I certainly don't think it comes down to the person disbelieving what they're saying or even not having a good argument. It arises from frustration at being unable to convince the other person to see something your way or at least achieve some understanding. This goal can be frustrated for many reasons. You may be wrong, you may have a bad argument, you may not have an effective strategy for communicating with the specific person, or the other person may just be digging in out of obstinance. You could do everything right on your end yet still find yourself feeling stymied to the point that some form of outburst is the only way to vent - so I think the thing to do is manage your expectations of the conversation from the start. Have bite-sized goals for what you want the other person to understand, and have a plan in mind to constructively navigate the conversation or gracefully exit if they don't seem responsive. Or if all else fails, just be ready to say, "Have a good day" and leave the thread. I appreciate the thoughts of the caller, but it's important for all of us - even those who have the most awesome and convincing points :D - to be prepared for the frustration that can lead to name-calling.
My point that I made with Seth was in that frustration from someone else's argument doesn't normally happen if you are coming out of it on the winning side. Once you resort to the name calling without rationality, deep down, you know you've lost. Why resort to that otherwise. Maybe there's a key in tonality too. One who resorts to name calling in jest may be more a believer in their own words than one who resorts to name calling in anger. I'm not dying on this hill, and I admit if I'm wrong, but it is good brain food.
There is NO excuse, justification or rationalization you can provide that supports name-calling of any sort. No one should
"need to be prepared" for the frustration that can lead to name-calling because it shouldn't be done in the first place. It is more than an etiquette mishap, it is an etiquette catastrophe. People need to start being taught good manners again. I recommend Emily Post, the last word in both manners and etiquette. In my mother's day, the words "is she a lady or is he a gentleman" didn't need to be asked of someone who was either of those things: the qualities are simply apparent.
@@famousamosisforreal I hope I didn’t come off as nitpicking your call. I don’t think any of us (including me) are experts. But I’ve personally felt the urge to insult/name call people who were pretty clearly just not listening. It’s a silly hill for anybody to die on. 😆 I hope my thoughts were helpful to others as yours was to me. It got the juices flowing on where my frustration comes from
@@maxalberts2003 I wouldn't say anything excuses it. I guess as I went on I wasn't even talking about name-calling itself as much as a gradient of unconstructive conversational behavior we can slip into before we know it (which might have been unclear communication on my part). I personally don't think I've called people names, but I've had moments I'm not proud of. Having boundaries you simply won't cross on principle is good, but it's also important to recognize where you have tendencies to derail and self-regulate.
@@maxalberts2003 Justification? No. But rationalization? There most certainly is. I absolutely agree with the sentiment that everyone should be more concerned with having a decent and gentle impact in social interactions, but never doubt that people can rationalize essentially _anything_ inside their own heads. That doesn't mean that the logic they use is sound, and it also doesn't mean that they are amenable to corrections of potentially faulty logic. Still, as long as they find it acceptable, they will accept it.
That being the case, you have to be understanding of the fact that lines of reason don't follow a straight path from A to B in everyone's head, and you most certainly need to be prepared to be engaged by that kind of response or you're setting yourself up to be needlessly frustrated.
"Arguments on the Internet don't change minds..."
They may not change the mind of the person you're arguing with, but as I often point out in the midst of the argument, "I'm not really talking to *you* - I realize that you might be so entrenched in your worldview that there's no way we could reach each other. I'm talking to those *reading* this discussion. Many may not be as dichotomized as we are - and might be swayed by either argument. THAT'S who I'm speaking to."
...and I've received several friend requests from people who did just that - listened to our discussion and liked my argument better.
It's not always about the one-to-one.
It has on occasion changed mine! I like listening to different perspectives and when verifiable facts are offered I will research further. As a truth seeker I’m looking for truth and it doesn’t matter the method of delivery. A speech, a lecture, a book, a radio or tv discussion, the internet is only another tool to carry information.
I so enjoy this particular talk. You spoke to me more than anyone today
Thanks for your insight 👍
Seth, you and your wife have always been an inspiration to me. I always find your videos interesting and I am glad that you stay so true to yourself and you are able to differentiate between Christianity and individual Christians. Much love you you guys .
Seth is my hero!!! I’ve commented that many times, and I couldn’t end the call without telling you that. I am Joe from Pennsylvania on the show, thanks so much for taking my call Seth. You articulate things in a way that I couldn’t begin to dream of. You’ve been so instrumental in my life over the last year or so, I honestly can’t thank you enough. You are amazing and so is your channel. From the bottom of my heart I can’t tell you how much what you are doing means to me.
Around the 28 minute mark was the most polite way of calling you (and me,54) old man! I love when these young bloods think we're old, but they're gonna wake up tomorrow and be 50!
I am 73 and amazed how sclerotic and fossilized some of the brains of some "young'uns" are. I try to follow the example of my father, who at 95 when he died was more progressive and forward-thinking, than many so-called liberals today.
I just turned 50 nobody is mature anymore not even people running the circus.
I listened to that conversation, and it reminded me of other conversations I’ve heard with Ermin. He arrogantly laughs and proclaims that every serious scholar agrees with him. Thanks for identifying where the conversation went off the rails for you. I felt it too. Love your work Seth.
"Intellect is invisible to the man who has none" --Arthur Schopenhauer
I agree with you. That laughter though.. it was just cringe in my opinion. Not on Seth's part, though. I could tell he was doing his best. Idk how he was able to keep his composure, I would have been sorely tempted to end the meeting if someone acted so arrogantly and laughed at my concerns the way Bart laughed at Seth. But, that's why I don't do interviews or public speaking for a living lol... Seth is far more gracious than I.
It’s a nervous habit of his. Go watch other videos. He does it every time.
I don't always agree with Seths take on everything, but so what? I agree with his atheism and I respect him personally enough to give him the chance to change my mind. Sometimes he does!
That's the thing. You dont have to completely agree with someone on everything.Honest discourse is how someone grows.
Even best friends don't agree on everything. How boring this world would be, if everybody agreed on everything?
I happen to agree with seth, wholeheartedly. I know plenty of Christians, and it's just a Seth puts it- most of them are good people.
I must also admit most of the people I know (other than certain family members, and some friends) don't know that I'm an atheist. I mostly keep it to myself.
That being said, situations are different depending on where you live and what you do. Many religious folk can be hateful, arrogant, hypocritical, judgmental etc.
Most of the Christians you encounter on platforms such as this are going to be in attack mode. They are defending their world view, and they are accustomed to heated debates. Therfore, if you are judging all Christians by the few you encounter in debates, you're "not seeing the forest for the trees", as the saying goes.
@@andrewc1205 How do you feel about the fact that most of your "folk" can be completely open & honest about their beliefs, but that you feel that you have to hide your position on these issues.
I'm not trying to be judgemental as perhaps you feel, that the price you would have to pay for your honesty, would be too high.
_Just curious._
You're a good and reasonable person, Seth! We're so grateful for you. Level-headed, thoughtful, good humored and invitational. Keep it coming! 😀👍🏻
Keep up the good fight Seth, love your work... cheers from Down Under.
I was 16 when I left the mormon church, and I was so angry at everyone that had any part of my indoctrination. That anger, especially directed at my parents, has very slowly lessened. I'm 34 now and only recently let that anger go. My parents no longer attempt to convert me back and I think I'm finally able to cordial conversation about religion. Of course, my mother still has it in her mind that I'm mormon, no matter what I say; but it doesn't hurt me to let her think that.
I saw that discussion and was disappointed in Bart Erhman, but you did fine. Good takedown of the nasty person who never grew out of f-bombs and hate.
F-bombs can be useful, but only in moderation, in my opinion.
@@IheartDogs55 at which time they are not f-bombs, but carefully placed Fucks. F bombs are the indiscriminate throwing the word around to the point of using it like an um. Which the person I am referring to did. My opinion and definition.
@@cindybidwellglaze7698 Nice definitions 👍!
I think Bart Ehrman has made his arguments re Paul knowing Jesus's brother and what NTwords attributed to Jesus could reasonably have been spoken by a first century Judean so many times.... that he forgets some people have not heard the arguments in full.
Good video, greatly enjoyed listening to it.
I feel a bit torn, because to be honest, I've thought in the same way as the guy who sent that hate mail. I've heard stories of families being torn apart, people being genuinely harmed, and atrocities being committed all in the name of christianity, and it's like...how can you not feel angry and hateful over that? I'll never forget the story of that 12 year old girl who got kicked out of her house by her fundamentalist family and was found crying at school after hours because she didn't believe hard enough. I read articles about human rights being taken away even today in this country, and the idea that we may one day live in a real life version of "The Handmaid's Tale" isn't totally out of the realm of possibility. We need to be angry, we need to be willing to fight back, and I have come to the conclusion that honestly, I would rather die fighting that kind of oppression than live enslaved in the kind of world those right-wing types work to create.
It takes a lot of effort to not lose myself in that hatred. I need to remind myself constantly that there are all sorts of good, well meaning and powerful groups fighting that possibility. The Satanic Temple, Freedom from Religion Foundation, and even on the religious side you have "Christians against Christian Nationalism". On some deep level, even if it's easy to forget about sometimes, and as bleak as the days are lately, I know that love and acceptance will triumph in the end and the fundamentalist nationalists will not win.
The letter was pretty extreme but I don't think that many of us disagree with the core point, it really isn't that long ago at all that we were being murdered in the street for our views all over the world (and it still happens today in some places) and while the answer isn't to cut off the head of every christian, it is vitally important that we don't forget that. You say that "love and acceptance will triumph in the end" but it isn't a forgone conclusion, it is only so as long as people continue to ensure it is so. I hate the bible, I hate christianity, but I don't hate christians because there's little point to that, the ones who are truly terrible people would be that way regardless of their religion and the rest are either victims of circumstance or their belief is so weak it's unlikely to ever manifest in a way that has profound negative effects. Or put another way: Don't hate the playa, hate the game. =)
Thank you for bringing the compassion and love for people to the table. Humanism in practice.
I'm in full agreement with your criticism of Bart Ehrman. He knows a lot about the specific subjects he's studied. But he seems to laugh off, ridicule and strawman criticism different positions, and fill in the gaps in his knowledge with things he makes up. I may agree with him on most conclusions, but not always on how he got to them.
Having read some of his books, and watched a lot of his videos, I have to say that he has a very well reasoned set of positions. And as he has learned more over the years, he has shifted his views on certain subjects. At least in his books, I don't find him making things up at all, and haven't really noticed it in his seminars either.
@@tonyshelver4931 Well yeah, but in those he isn't put on the spot and speaks on what he actually knows. And I have already admitted he does a great job when doing so.
The problem is when he veers off it, such as when discussing mythesism. Godless Engineer has done some running through with Richard Carrier analysing his recent interviews on it which may give you more insight in what I am saying. His instincts when meeting contrary opinions really do take him to ridicule, laughing off and strawmanning the actual positions. Which is too bad, because it means an opponents strongest peer reviewed evidence does not even get given serious consideration, let alone made a strong case against. Thus impeding progress.
Hi Seth and thanks for keeping me company during work. You really provide a window into another world/society for non-Americans and I feel like you are a very kind man.
Seth, fellow Tulsan here😊
Your demeanor is much respected and needed.
Thx for all you do man
This is an appeal to civility & a much needed one.
Seth,
sometimes there is no point in arguing a point,
don't beat yourself up, you can’t win them all.
Clobbering someone over the head with ideals won't change anyone's mind. In many cases, they'll be emboldened, as will others who share their belief. The only effective way to enact a change in a person's fundamental belief is through catharsis and internal reflection.
16:15 holy crap. I hope that was a troll email because that's some terrifyingly unhinged mass shooter manifesto material right there. Hello, FBI? Yea that guy right there.
As far as Prof. Ehrman is concerned, he's MUCH easier going than the professors I had, especially the ones who wrote the textbooks for the course. :D
I just received your newest book. I can't wait to read it. Love your books
The interview with Dr Bart was a bit frustrating. I've heard him talk about Jesus existing in other interviews and he was very convincing. It seems he just didn't want to talk about it. I'd love to see y'all hash it out one of these days
I agree with the fact Jesus didn't claim to be God. The things you mentioned could apply to a self-proclaimed prophet as well
Well, I'm a "follower" of Spinoza's and Einstein's god, so I'm an atheist for all matters and purposes of this discussion, and I'm living in germany where we have essencially two christian denominations of nearly equal size, catholics and evangelicals, the latter being members of the very church kickstarting protestantism and founded by Martin Luther himself about 500 year ago not far from where I'm living.
I never got judged for not believing in a personal god even just once in my life, and in daily life religion plays not a role anyways - people can know each other for years without knowing about each other's religious convictions, secularism isn't attacked, and in regard to dogma the overwhelming majority of catholics are far more moderate than one would expect considering the public church policies - in fact they feel largely enstranged from their higher clerics and are in support of far reaching reforms, espeacially since they are disgusted by the way cases of child abuse are handled by the leadership (many are nominally leaving the church out of protest and keep practicing on their own), and anti-science bullshit isn't part of the catholic church's program anyways.
Most of the more serious catholics tend to vote for the conservative party of germany (CDU - "christ-democratic union") which shouldn't be equated with the GOP:
In a country which has plenty of experience with fascism as well as stalinism the political landscape is reliably calibrated so to speak, and conservatism is on the right but close to the political center - its US counterpart would be the democrats. Unfortunatly we have an actual counterpart to the GOP here as well, founded not even 9 years ago. It's a literal GOP clone and gets rightfully treated as an extremist and neofascist party which gets rejected by 90% of society - it's not conservative but reactionary and serves as a pool for all those who are opposed to democratic values; market radicals and randroids, conspiracy theorists, contrarians and science deniers, reactionaries, homophobes, sexists, racists and outright neonazis (which contribute a considerable number to the party), and both main churches are explicitly opposed to this party.
The evangelicals of Luther's church aren't correlated with any poitical party at all, they can range from the right-centrist conservatives already mentioned well into the progressive left, but for the most part they might be slightly left of the center. They tend to view their evangelical US brethren and their tendency to extreme right and reactionary ideas with utter disbelief:
Creationism and biblical literalism get rejected as the attempt to equate god with the words of men who merely tried to conceptionalize him - in their view the bible is "inspired" by god in the same sense an extremly untalented painter can get inspired by a beutiful tree - the tree exists, but because of his limitations the painter will be far off in his depictions and include factual and technical errors; as not even the best painter can squeeze the tree into the canvas even the most wise will never squeeze god into words.
The church doesn't push purity culture, it doesn't push abstinence only, it doesn't push prosperity gospel or healing by laying on hands, no speaking in tongues, no anti-abortion stances, and women are equal to men (the church was led by women in the past).
There's not even a church policy discriminating against homosexuals - same sex couple marriages get performed, and even homosexual pastors living in same sex marriage got ordained.
There is a small minority of believers of other churches who match all the defining features of the bigoted fundamentalist - and this tiny minortiy of christian churches belongs to cults imported from the US..
What I actually mean to say: I'm certain the guy who sent the mail attacking christians in the worst way possible (and furthering the persecution complex seemingly prevalent in the US - I never met a christian here who felt persecuted) had some bad experiences with christians, but it's not caused be the latter's identity of being christian, it's caused by their particular approach.
The US fundies this guy is speaking about aren't representing all christians in the US, let alone in the world. The christian extremism many people seem to take for granted when it comes to christians is a largely us-american phenomenon and appears as strange to the overwhelming majority of for example european christians as it does to atheists..
I really love this video. As an atheist, I get so sick of seeing other atheists just acting superior and claiming that all Christians are the same. I'll see things like, "I've never heard of an intelligent Christian" and all I can think is that I have met plenty that are way smarter than I am. For example a close friend of mine is 1 year away from her PHD in bio-chemistry, she has multiple masters degrees in other subjects as well, and she is a Catholic. When I look into what some of the "I don't see smart religious people" brand of atheists they work at Mcdonalds or walmart (not to bash folks who work at any fast food joint or super market) or something with no degrees, no college history, barely a high school diploma. don't get me wrong, I can't afford to go to college and I don't have any degrees either, but at least I'm not so pretentious to act superior and talk shit without backing it up. These guys constantly use the no true scotsman fallacy as if their life depended on it. It's not all religious folks, it's not all atheists, it's just a very vocal group of folks, and it gets old. I know wonderful people from both religious and non religious backgrounds. I know terrible people on both sides as well. My dad is a bigoted religious man, my cousin is an asshole atheist who thinks violence is an acceptable response to creationists and anti-vaxxers. MY mom is a Christian and she is a wonderful person and I don't hate her or treat her like shit because of it, and obviously as an atheist I have had to make some atheist friends because otherwise I wouldn't have many friends because most religious folks in my area (not all but most) are vehemently against godless folks and will try to save my soul at all costs. Every time someone offers to pray for me I say, "thank you, but it's cool. You can pray later when I'm not around. I'd personally rather not have anyone lay their hands on me for any reason and I don't have the time to spare to sit here while they attempt to heal my soul that I don't believe exists so I can spend time in a magical place that I don't believe exists to spend time with their deity of choice that I don't believe exists. Have a wonderful day, se you around."
I love seeing the more positive discussions where folks ignore the trolls from all sides and just treat each other like human beings. Sure I enjoy sharing the occasional meme that might get under someone's skin just because it made me laugh, but I prefer reading decent conversations whenever they happen, though they are incredibly rare to stumble across unless you dig for hours, and I don't have that much time to spend seeking it out. Again, fun video and I love these discussions. Keep up the amazing work, and once I have the money to spare I hope I can afford your book. I'm very interested in giving it a read.
Lovely response. And very humbling to me tonight.
Discussing in the comments here is really a good training.
It helped me to not only learn to argue my posidion, refining it in the dozens of times I repeated them (and not copied them),
it also brings you to understand your OWN position better, to harden it - or to find you have to adapt it.
My impression is that insults make no sense, quite the opposite, they affirm your opponent you are an a**hole, and that all your arguments can be discarded blindly.
I go for what the people tell me, and then go through THEIR points, one by one, and rip them apart.
When they simply change topic or start insulting you, you have "won". Then they get the "psychological broadside" that usually silences them.
- you bring me nothing but slogans from someone else, cannot explain them, let alone defend them. That can be learned and must be trained. You can do that - but have to want to.
- start to think what you think and why. To know what your standpoint is and be able to formulate it, you have to question it - question YOURSELF.
- when you want to persuade, you need to be able to bring supporting facts and not just claim things - and the claims are from someone else.
- Learn to listen and to react on what other people say. That makes your impact on the other more powerful.
- when you want to excel, then first clarify the definitions, so that you do not talk past each other with the same words,
and then start with finding the COMMON ground, that what you agree upon.
Then you can start bashing each other's head in - when it is still worth it, when it has not already become so little that it ain't worth it.
That is the next new formulation... ;-))
Feel free to criticize that, only that makes it better.
about the toxic email. I can honestly say I think the same in regards to christianity but I realize that this kind of thinking is wrong and is counter to anything I want and strife for. Watching people with a lot of self-control who can articulate themselves rather then threat physical violence or go right to name-calling is helping me in keeping my mental stability and focus on the larger goal. It would be great if religious people would "come around" realizing their folly and the insanity of mass-control, brainwashing and indoctrination but it probably will never happen, not without drastic steps which would immediately neutralize the banner under which they were performed (life and equal rights for everybody, freedom of choice and speech etc)
We cannot discount the place that Scientology played in Will Smith's actions.
He said it in his faux apology, that his god makes him a conduit "for peace".
He believes his actions are always righteous because God is on his side.
How very Henry VIII of him.
Or you're just racist and hate Smith for being black
I appreciate your openness to reflecting, Seth
Part of me felt so sad for the angry atheist. He must have suffered seriously from a very young age. He’s filled with rage and pain. Sadly he may never get the help he clearly needs.
Seth: Please see Joyce Carol Oates's brilliant novel, SON OF THE MORNING. You will love it. She dedicates it to "One Whose absence is as palpable as any presence."
I think you should most definitely go for the Aron Ra look!
The Klingon look?
The Disney villain look
I find it rather amusing, especially within the US, that Christians have been very quick to criticize Muslims for not disavowing and being critical of Muslim bad actors... Yet it seems almost infinitely rare that any of them would have the same sort of criticism of Christian bad actors. I understand it's very difficult to point that mirror inward and face ones own flaws, but it truly is one of the best ways to improve.
That kind of hypocrisy goes all the way back to Matthew 7:5
I was hoping for more detailed answers from Dr Ehlman, with that said I heard him responding from a lens of not supporting The Bible as a factual book and more of a book based on belief. Which speaks volumes. I saw nothing wrong with your interviewing approach. You asked the questions, if the guest deflects the question that life. I appreciate your reasonable mature approach. I applaud your platform and open mindedness. Thank you!
I appreciate your common sense take on making comments on the internet, some folks have a tendency to get a little carried away. =)
What you do is so important... I hope with all my heart that I meet you in person some day... they always so don't meet your heros... you are very much my hero... and I would be thrilled to shake your hand...
Steve Martin wrote a marvellous short story about The Cruel Shoes.
I think Ehrman is being paraded around too much and he let's it get to his head instead of actually questioning his own conclusions.
Great show.
boooooooooring.....
Should of shown a nipple or SOMETHING.....
uuughhh
disclaimer: Naughty sense of humour, I appologize incase it was in poor taste. I'm still learning how you humans do comedy. My comedy books were somehow perceived as holy books. I mean I genocide the whole planet but one family and I told that family to be be fruitful and multiply. LOL the mom, and sisters all got gang banged to repopulate the world AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHH oh shit i'm so funny!
Love your show, you are a Star, you will be lighting the conference room 🤗🥳
I agree that people don’t resort to name calling and insults because they lack conviction and know they are wrong. This is not limited to theists - Matt Dillahunty knows without a doubt his arguments are valid and logical but he gets to a point where he lacks emotional regulation so when he gets frustrated he resorts to name calling and insults instead of effective communication. It is not about being wrong it’s about lacking self-control and emotional regulation.
I bought one of his courses and found it a little thin. Still, I find him interesting, a bible scholar-atheist is rare.
I don’t think it’s as rare as you think… or else they aren’t a very good scholar.
I went with longer hair. I wanted this hair-style as a teen-ager, sure. But, I'm not trying to reclaim anything about my youth. I'm better together now in my 50's.
Have to say.... this came to mind.
“It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”
Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, 'Good Omens.'
Seek ye the lord in matters of folicular lengthening.
Amen.
I would like to say that I have not done any of the more vitriolic things that some atheists do...but I would be lying. This going to be long and likely come off as a rant, something I should probably send into Lewis Black, but I might as well start here, given the topics in the video.
I have definitely been in that phase of deep utter hatred of religion, starting with Christianity and then including the rest. I was able to recognize that the bulk of hatred was directed more towards the organization and how it was always exploited by the absolute worst, but that did not quite stop me from spreading that hatred to everything else about religion, especially about Christianity. It took me quite a while to get past it, at least to the point that I do not get easily triggered over it, though I am not as successful in that regard as I might be making it sound - obviously better than before but still clearly a work in progress.
It really took me just pulling myself out of that world, not so much seeking out other atheists (and I certainly was not one at the time) but just getting out of that part of the country where every other billboard is a "Hell is Real" or anything related (there were even trucks, both pickup and semi, that have those signs on the trailer walls or their own signs fixed to the truck). Bit by bit, one by one, I met people who were Christian or whatever else that were genuinely good people. Some of them were...I would not say "fervent" in their belief but did try to do genuine good in line with it - and by "genuine," I mean, "good that the vast majority, faithful or not, would agree on."
We rarely talked about faith, and the ones that did talk about it did not do so until after I had become an atheist (just cases of coincidental time). I was able to maintain my friendship - or at least amicablility (is that a real word?) - with them, and I was able to get them to accept that while I would never share their religious beliefs, as they as they still tried to do that good that they strive for, then I ultimately do not care about what they believe or not as long as they keep trying to do those good acts.
Unfortunately for me, these kinds of Christians and other faithful have been quite few for me. For every one of these good ones, there were, are, and could be anything from 10 to 10,000 bad ones, the ones that you might find at a sermon by Locke. This is predominantly why I am still working on building that thick skin. It has gotten to the point that when I hear someone declare that Christianity (or any religion, but Christianity is what I hear the most often) should be the law of the land, I ask, "Well then, are you going to make all of the [insert religion's name] holidays full public holidays that get us out of work during them and with full pay for the days? No? Then keep [insert religion's name] the f^^^ out of the government." To me, an encouragement of what could be described as laziness is a sign of the institution in question (be it government or religion or whatever) actually trying to improve your lives.
Am I an @$$hole at least some of the time? Yes, especially when it comes to religion. Do I try to be an @$$hole when it comes to religion? No, but I do admit that I fail at not acting like one over religion (or politics, though where I am from, they usually go hand-in-hand) most of the time. It is like what I had to tell my born-again Christian mother when I moved out:
"People are people, saints are saints, and @$$holes are @$$holes. All Christianity does is act as a smokescreen for the @$$holes. Actual saints do not use Christianity as their reason for doing good, but @$$holes always use Christianity as their excuse for doing evil. That goes for any other religion you want to bash, but right now, here in the US, all of the biggest @$$holes, the ones with the power to potentially cause the greatest suffering to the most people possible, loudly and very blatantly identify themselves as Christians...and you unquestioningly support them. Why should I or anyone else, atheist or not, ever believe that you care about doing good? To an ever-growing number of people, it is those like you that teach people that there is no greater group of evildoers than Christians, and you wonder why the number of people leaving the faith is continuing to grow."
Was it the best thing I could have said? Probably not, but I am certain that it needed to be said, and if my mother needed to hear it, then it might as well come from me.
Dr. Erhman has explained elsewhere his ideas about what Jesus actually said. I think it was in his video about Misquoting Jesus.
I'm around the same age and I just let my hair grew out and kept it for half a decade and then last week I got it cut shorter than I ever had (though it will settle at a happy medium now)
On Bart Erhman, and other professor types, I think they have this idea of continuous audience, where something they answer somewhere else can be gestured at vaguely in the now. I listened to the interview and I knew answers he gave, either from his other appearances or a book I read, but he just gestured at them instead of phrasing again. In youtube, for a lot of people this is either the first time they come across an explanation, so they want the full text, or a new phrasing if they have heard it before. That's what annoys me in his interviews, it seems like you have to watch them all in order to get the full picture.
Perhaps in your next interview with Prof. Ehrman you can raise and discuss and grind him on the unsatisfactory answers he gave in the previous interview? I, for one, will certainly watch it. Or maybe you should have a live interview, so we can ask those questions we want elaboration on?
I know I'm commenting a year late, but in my late 50's, I think I was 58, I started and grew out a ponytail that can sometimes reach the top edge of my belt. I called it my "High School Firebird" from the movie American Beauty with Kevin Spacey. I told my wife I can't afford a Firebird, so I'm going with the ponytail! It's a midlife crisis thing. Your hair comments reminded me of it.
I still have the ponytail and my wife still loathes it. I fear one night I'm going to wake up with her over me with a pair of garden shears!
Just bought your books on audible. Congrats on your writing discipline.
I wrote that there is no need for angry discourse. In my mother's day, no one had to ask the question, "Is she a lady or is he a gentleman?" because the issue would never arise. The same goes for these angry ranting letter writers of any stripe. Whatever they are, it is clear what they are NOT: ladies and gentlemen. Just ignore them.
To Bart Erhman’s defense, he did say that he could go into the existence of the historical Jesus but it would take too long. If you want to know what he specifically teaches on it, watch his “How Jesus Became God” on Wondrium. It’s one of his courses with 24 lectures. It’s very well done.
Seth, I was reading stuff from W.E.B.Dubois and he, the scholar that he was making references to Egyptian culture of 1000s of years ago and of Mulattos as being more representative of folks in Africa and Egypt had female and male black skin Pharoahs,who lived way backi when and he was like reading from the like origina text, Greek ancient Greek?
It crossed my mind this morning as I thought about God and is as supposedly His creation and couldn’t help but consider that IF God loves us as He says He does, why didn’t he give us some instructions? And the Ten Commandments if anything should have been given to Adam in the garden of Eden. This would have eliminated the reasons for a flood. That is IF it even happened now? Who would have thought that God and religion would be so confusing and complicated? Aloha 🌺
I also wrote that, like the late, wonderful Edward Gorey, I too hate and fear both the metric and the Dewey Decimal Systems. Tucker Carlson reminds me of dear Gilda Radner's character, Emily Latella, who always opened with "What's this I hear about...?"
I love your podcast and TH-cam shows
And when you do different voices I can’t help but laugh I love it
Keep up the great work your fan Leslie
A dialog with a religious person is a waste of breath. Lots of valuable information. Thanks Seth!!
Whatever you do, keep clean shaven. Long hair is fine, but I live in Tennessee where everyone has facial hair. They think it makes them manly. Even the woman grow beards.
Good old Tennessee, where the men are men and the women are too.
"Even the women grow beards" said the transphobic bigot
To the point about "are agnostics atheists?", and your question of, "If you don't know it, how can you believe it?" I have had similar thoughts, and I see where you're coming from but the more I thought about it, it seems to me that belief itself unavoidably *entails not knowing!* Put another way, believing something automatically means you have some amount of doubt or lack of knowledge about it, right? Otherwise one would say they know, rather than believe, right? I remembered hearing someone say this (believing includes doubting / not knowing) back when I was a Christian, and it really bothered me, and I bristled at the idea. But now I think it is accurate. Interestingly, a lot of folks who call themselves believers say they do know, which always makes me wonder why they aren't calling themselves "knowers", but anyway...
“Jesus never claimed he was god.” There are at least two ways to assess that.
1) we don’t know that Jesus ever claimed anything. The quotes in the Bible are unreliable.
2) Some versions of Jesus, according to the gospels, did claim to be god.
3) I agree with the caller and suspect Ehrman meant that what he concludes as the historical Jesus would not have claimed to be god - maybe a messiah ala David. Jesus would have been a Jew and claiming to be god would be the highest blasphemy. That’s not an unreasonable position, but he didn’t explain it that way, so I can understand the pushback
That's an absurd argument. There is no other data to look at other than what is in scriptures and they are quite clear that Jesus claimed to be God. Any counter argument is baseless assumption.
I am now picturing Seth with Aron's hair.
I find it fun to be nice to people who are being mean to me because it really throws them off and it's funny to see their reactions. I'm a security guard and the other night I had a guy that when I looked at him he just said "what the hell do you want?" I smiled back and said "for you to have a great night." He went to say something and then paused because what I said was not the response he was expecting and it was so funny to see the confused look on his face.
55 in Lincoln NE. Keep your hair short 😉 Trust me. Thanks for all you do!
I lost 99% of my respect for Bart Ehrman when he said 'Mythicists just want to tear down Christianity'. Sounds exactly like religious people who say 'Atheists just want to sin' like comments. The moment you claim to know what's in someone's head better than they do you've lost. Makes you wonder if he can hold that kind of belief so irrationally what others is he and can you then trust anything he claims.
And he's 100% dismissing ANY points counter to his own, without even trying to address them. Full fallacy mode, that guy.
@@corytheviking5239 Ehrman worries more about his teaching position and keeping his old books relevant than he does having an honest conversation about Jesus mythicist research.
About intellectuals and academic types in general.. They(academic types) reach a point in their careers(usually later in their careers) where they surrender to the idea that they have figured out all that can be figured out and they basically shutdown to any new adventures.
On Barts "Jesus never claimed to be god", He is referencing the synoptic gospels Marc, Matthew and Luke where no reference is made. It is only in John written many decades later where it seems Jesus is calling himself devine. Bart's position is that John deviated so much from Marc that it isn't an accurate account of the historical Jesus. Also, I agree that he was strawmanning what mythicists say about a historical Jesus. Carrier and Price both state that they hold a historical Jesus as a valid possibility just that they don't find enough evidence for it to be convincing. Carrier explicitly states that a mythical Jesus would be a bad argument to disprove christianity. It's my understanding after watching many Erhman lectures that 2 of his strongest arguments for historicity is a reference by Paul about James the brother of Jesus and that the gospels writers wouldn't bother to write about a failed prophet unless it was based on a real person. Both still leave me skeptical.
To the guy at 50:20 promoting different types of atheists, I think that's a terrible idea and I'll tell you why. First, an atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in deities I think you could even say an atheist is someone doesn't find any evidence to support a god belief. But to complicate matters with agnostic atheism and so on, serves no purpose but to obfuscate any conversation or debate with a theist.
I was recently involved in one such conversation with a theist who was playing g word games and semantics, and I was trying to keep the conversation focused on a point, and asked him several times why he believes in god. He ignored the question, and resorted to babble on about unrelated issues, and in the middle of it he injected the phrase, something like "I don't even know what an atheist is, there are so many kinds".
Well i didn't take the bait. I didn't allow him to open up a pointless rabbit hole to go down. I assumed he was making up a needless distraction.
Christopher Hitchens famously said in his debate with William Lane Craig, when Craig tried that nonsense tactic against Hitchens, is that he didn't thought that the guy who popularized the term 'agnostic' didn't do atheists any favors.
I agree with Hitchens. It's a bullshot term. Atheists don't believe in gods. Let the burden of proof lie with the theist.
NO NO NO FRIGGIN MULLET!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yeah I was really frustrated and disappointed with Erhman too…I was very surprised with a lot of his content because it was so
off the rails.
The thing is I have Christian friends who are wonderful, caring people. They try to live out the gospel as best they can. But for the most part, they are moderate to liberal Christians and not fundamentalists.
I have to be honest though, I personally can't stand conservative evangelicals or fundamentalists of any stripe be they Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Christian or whatever. In my view fundamentalists are always reactionary, look upon women as second class citizens, and are generally a bane to society. Of course, I am sure that there are some exceptions to that, but overall their worldview sucks. I wouldn't mind as much if they didn't keep trying to cram their beliefs down everyone's throat. Texas is a prime example of what happens when Christian crazies take over. They banned abortion, are banning books, are implementing anti-gay/ trans legislation. I could go on and on. They truly want a theocracy. So I really can't help but take a dim view of them. But yet there are many who aren't like that. I just wish they would speak up more. Anyway, that's my two cents worth. (By the way, I think you would look good in a goatee. But not with longer hair.)
The biggest problem I have with the “loving, caring” Christians is they tend not to call out the problem Christians, and they vote the same way, anyway, so if I never meet them (and the vast majority I won’t), I won’t be able to tell a significant difference.
4:20 I attended the Ehrnan-Price debate. I kept waiting and waiting for him to move on from the argument from authority.
Amen to the hair thinning out at 50!!! 😂😂 Yeah I don't know how anyone can spend most of their day tapping away online. Personally aside from watching a few shows on YT other than that I can't sit still for hours on end with anything on here. I lose interest. Of course I do the usual check email and day to day things we do now online but for the most part I just can't spend hours having a conversation or reading posts. I have to take a nap if I do that kind of time.😂
This should be fun. Nothing says christian love more than hate mail, email and callers.
Thank you for this video.
This was a interview than a debate. The more you do the better you get,
I always get your books from audible. Even the stuff that normally makes me angry is soothing when you say it. LOL
It's not an "appeal to authority". Because he didn't claim it was so, "BECAUSE" they believe. Bart has on many other occasions explained his reasoning, but usually in like 20 minuets chunks on debates. I feel like Bart didn't explain that point, because he couldn't. That's kinda like saying "well tell me why radiometric dating is right." In five minuets. Not easy to do.
Thank you for uploading the stream, I can never get to them even with ALL BELLS CLICKED!! 😬😬😬
How refreshing to see someone not only admit they could have done something better, but to also thanked his audience for pointing out his flaws.
Yeah, imagine someone like Hannity saying 'I was wrong about a certain drug' instead of saying 'I've been saying all along how bad it was'.
"this person is a mite perturbed" 🤣 good one Seth
Even thought I disagree with Ehrman about the historicity of Jesus, I think his defence of Jesus earns him brownie points with Christians. So, in a way, his stance gives him useful credibility where it matters. Ehrman was highly influential in my personal de-conversion long before I thought about the strange circumstance of the Jesus store.
The easiest way to get your foot into activisim is to go to the school board meetings or to city council meetings.
See what your neighbors are up to and set out to stop any rulings that infringe on your rights.
Seth, I am no sycophant for any you tuber but I am a fan of yours. It's about time somebody questioned Ehrman that is not an apologist.
Yes, be kinder to the centrist. I agree. You are the most level headed that I see in the atheist community. That must take a ton of restraint.
I was amazed at all the holes in Ehrman's discourse with you yesterday. Especially the Jesus never claimed to be God comment.
"I know thousands of scholars that agree with me" Ehrman says.
I will stop here.
Seth, you are just the best.
Thank you for taking the risk to your channel by squeezing old Bart a bit!
I couldn't even finish the video. Ehrman's attitude through nearly every second I managed to watch was grating at the best of times. When you see him discuss free form, it becomes pretty obvious why other channels like Paulogia have him respond to small chunks at a time and edit heavily. It's clear he doesn't like to be challenged, and his kneejerk response to it is very disappointing for someone that rests their identity on being a scholar. Correct answers aren't offended by questions. Interrupting your host by repeatedly shouting "NO!" like a child is terrible optics when it could've been simply corrected at the end of the statement like any real misunderstanding would be.
@@PsychoSpecter
Really......I often wonder what a polygraph would reveal when Ehrman gets that jumpy.
Bart said he writes books for broad audiences and other books for deep scholars.
I have not seen those scholarly books offered....have You?
Bart has a lot to lose if he came too clean.
But, I do find Ehrman useful if I have to combat scripture and what Bart calls Christology.
Cheers!
For some reason my comment wasn't saved. Here it is again: Like the late, wonderful Edward Gorey, I too am opposed to both the Metric and the Dewey Decimal Systems. Carlson reminds me of dear Gilda Radner's character, Emily Latella. "What's this I hear about...?"
23:55 ish - Arguing online.
"You couldn't have an argument with Lord de Worde. Not a proper argument. An argument, from 'arguae', meant to debate and discuss and persuade by reason. What you could have with William's father was a flaming row." - Pratchett.
What we often have online is a flaming row. An actual argument is not a bad thing. It's just a discussion, admittedly sometimes a passionate one, but providing it's attempting to persuade by reason rather than insult there's little wrong with it. The next time you, the reader, are involved in an exchange of opposing views, ask yourself which you're having. An argument or a flaming row.
Beards and mustaches make men look older. I’m in my mid fifties also and tried it and aged myself ten years. It’s quicker and easier to just shave.
Seth thanks for being one of the very few voices of Sanity reason and decency out there on either side of the debate I think because we are all humans no two of us will ever agree on everything and I kind of come down on the side of the atheist position myself now but at the same time I was in love with a church for a while that was full of people that I now feel I can't agree with on a lot of things because they are way more conservative than I never going to be but at the same time they were great people and treated me wonderfully so I think we can all treat each other better regardless of whether or not or not we agree on things
The new book is great. We think a lot alike.
Thanks for your good response to the (somewhat prolix) Delaware caller. 👍
Looks like you camera setting went to 720i (Interlaced) instead of 720p (Progressive)
Please remember the Easter bunny, Santa, the god of the sky realms nor the devil actually do any thing, it's always people, and we grew up with people, we should cope better with each other, here's to hope🐠🏴☠️
"It made me remember, there were the Academy Awards." ... *LOL*
I came away from the Dr Ehrman interview feeling like he gave nothing away- like all his answers were that whole cryptic, secret society crap.
I subsequently searched Mike Lacona and found a real gem of a video of him degrading and equating the people that don’t believe Jesus was a real guy to conspiracy theorists and crackpots.
I do understand why you (Seth) felt like you needed to move on. B.E.s side of the convo was a dud.
I'd like to call and discuss this with you, Seth. I'll be watching