A Review of Good Evidence Vs. Bad Evidence & Assumptions| Jonathan - Boston | Talk Heathen 04.05
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Multistreaming with restream.io/
Talk Heathen 04.05 for February 2, 2020 with Eric Murphy & Vi La Bianca.
Call the show on Sundays 1:00-2:30pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more: / talkheathentome
The podcast may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
Talk Heathen merch can be found at: bit.ly/aenmerch
► Chat room rules:
atheist-experie...
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
CONTACTS & SOCIAL MEDIA
Instagram:
Eric Murphy: Erictheheathen
Vi La Bianca: vilabianca
Twitter:
Eric Murphy: @dirtyheathen
Vi La Bianca: @AuthorConfusion
Facebook.com/talkheathen
Reddit.com/r/talkheathen
NOTES
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Ethan Meixsell "Takeoff"
/ talkheathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
The Jonathan they were talking to is Jonathan McLatchie, he's a well known apologist. He stumbles around and grasps at straws in every debate I've watched with him. He's so bad at debating I don't know why he bothers, I guess he gets paid to travel to do debates. It's amazing the kind of gullibility he displays about anything biblical.
Yeah, I had recognized that voice myself. I wonder what that accent is. But one reason that he doesn't completely drive me nuts is that he's an evidentialist, not a presup. McLatchie is desperate to find support for his beliefs, to the point of manufacturing them, but Presups are completely intellectually and morally bankrupt, willing to lie about anything and everything right in your face. I have to give McLatchie credit for being not as bad as Sye Ten Bruggencate.
I've always wondered what J. McLatchie's peers think about him.
Thank you I didn't recognized him.
The verbal gymnastics Jonathan demonstrated , Somersaults, Head stands, Cartwheels, Handsprings, and Scissor leaps... Truly an Olympic performance,
But he was using Base Theorm, how could he possibly be wrong?
@@supertouring22 He's completely misusing Bayes Theorem as well, he clearly doesn't understand what it is.
@@zaprowsdower3081 Thanks for correcting my spelling 👍
@@supertouring22 Hope I wasn't being a spelling douche, that was incidental to my reason for posting.
@@zaprowsdower3081 All good.
Iron Man talks to Spiderman in New York. Captain America talks to Iron Man about Spiderman. New York exists. Therefore Spiderman exists and was verified in the story by another source in the story.
By theists logic! (5 star comment! Josh! They just don't understand! )
Dude, if Gandalf died upon Caradhras, was dead for 3 days and was then resurrected, and came back more powerful than before, it's not so hard to believe that Jesus died, was "resurrected" and then came back as a delusion.
I genuinely don't understand how theists can read storybooks and understand implicitly that they're reading fictional stories that might contain real people/ places/ events, but when they read the bible, they demand that it must be true and throw out mentions of real places/ people as justification for it being non-fiction. They want to pretend that a storybook that contains a story where the author/ editor has written about an event that has been witnessed by 500 characters is actual 'eyewitness testimony' instead of a story containing eyewitness characters. It really boggles the mind.
Nb: Whenever jesus-jerkers come to the door and try throwing bible quotes at me, I throw Lord Of The Rings quotes right back at them. Gandalf had far more profound dialogue than anything I've read re: jesus!
Wait? What year? Because New York didn't exist like 400 years ago!
@@sharonsmith1203 that was Old York.
@@Puchuchi747 Even old New York was once New Amsterdam. Why they changed it I can't say.
I truly admire the patience of both Vi and Eric on this call.
5 star show!
I felt like walking out to my backyard, bat in hand and obliterating a microwave after listening to 1/8 of this call. I seriously end a lot of these calls wondering how these people don't get picked off by natural selection more often.
@@spaghettimonstersjudgingyo504 Just once I'd like for one of these apologist chaps to come up with something new. This guys BS was debunked when William Lane Craig went on about it, and still he talks about "facts" about the resurrection. Cosmic Sceptic had already pulled apart this routine when they debated.
@@bobwhelan5636 "Just once I'd like for one of these apologist chaps to come up with something new."
OMG yes. I can't think of the number of times I've thought the same thing. It's like listening to a broken record with these folks. Over and over it's the same thing with different wording. It's gotten to the point where I can hear a small tidbit of what their reasoning is and know exactly where they're going most of the time. I get we aren't exactly dealing with a new subject but there's got to be at least a few new arguments from time to time. If for nothing more than academic curiosity I'd like to hear something new. At least then the argument might be mentally stimulating. It seems like to me most of the time you get the god of gaps. Next most common is some kind of presuppositionalist argument and then it's a mix of the more random personal reasons where you get the oddball stuff. I saw a ghost when I was 8 so the supernatural is real or I prayed for my moms cancer to go away, that kind of stuff. I really gotta hand to the hosts of these shows for how patient they are at listening to the same thing over and over. I'm sure they have moments where it drives them bonkers but they keep on keepin on. It shows a level of commitment I find impressive. It's a bit like the atheist version of the entrepreneur trope where you fail and fail until you make it. These guys are just the atheist version where they go through 1000 theists and slowly but surely their converting more and more.
"The guy on page 240 said essentially the same thing as the guy on page 267, so that's independent verification."
To be fair, the book is a compilation of seperate texts. A heavily biased and heavily edited compilation, but still a compilation of seperate sources. On one hand I can understand why someone would say "But Mark and John have this bit of info in common" lends weight to that as evidence, but I'd also say that the heavy bias and editing counterbalance and overbalance that. Which is why going back to the original sources is so important.. And why the fact that we don't have the original sources or even know who wrote them is such a problem for scholars, let alone apologists and believers.
"I can't answer questions or listen to you so I'm gonna let you go." That is what I heard.
He still doesn’t understand the Bible is making claims and not providing any outside evidence. There’s just no way to corroborate
It stems from an unwritten Christian rule stemming from biblical inerrancy:
“The Bible is the only book you will ever need.”
@@beccatee66
I'm pretty sure we can say that about 80+% of all christians in total. They're all doing the same wether they're awares or not.
@@beccatee66 got any sources on that?
@@beccatee66 do you have any evidence to back up your belief? All episodes are available for viewing send me a link.
@@beccatee66 He doesn't sound like Mark at all though they have different accents, don't make similar points and Jon is far better at sophistry.
The evidence we need is that they are the same person.
Eric ROCKS!! Vi ROCKS!! Listening to 35 minutes of the two of you arguing a psuedo-theist into tears is a semester's worth of theology! Brilliant stuff, guys -- I'm saving this and listening to it again later.
DAMN!! Good work!
Jews, who study the Bible for a living, do not think Jesus was the son of the god of Israel.
Christians who study the Bible for a living think Jesus was the son of the god of Israel.
Both groups are happy with the money they make.
Good luck.
You think the scholars are the big "money makers" in this?
@@forallthestupidshit3550
Don't you think the Chief Rabi is a big money maker ?
How about the Pope ?
Or Kent Hovind
or Ray Comfort ?
@@forallthestupidshit3550
The Russian Orthodox Church leader has his own candle factory. I would say, he is in for the money! (Those candles are sold tax-free inside the churches)
Those are sweeping statements and not exactly accurate. Ehrman for example does not think Jesus was the son of any god at all. And there are several other professional biblical scholars who argue that Jesus didn't exist at all, even as just a wandering rabbi who had a mythology built up around him. Even saying "Professional biblical scholars exist and study text for a living to make money" is an oversimplification and a point with little value. Perhaps I missed your point. Would you like to try again?
@@tehspamgozehere
You certainly did miss my point.
(Luke 6:24)
Eric ROCKS! Man, it just hurts my head when people can't answer a SIMPLE question. "Well I'm gonna go because you guys aren't giving any specifics (that I could easily denounce with my assumption logic)." And in my professional career I took and recorded eyewitness statements daily. The notion that one is more credible over the other because a weapon may or may not have been involved is one of the biggest piles of crap I have ever heard. People's minds can react so very differently under stress. Stress of any kind.
"Can it be summed up as it says it will happen in the book, then the book say it happened, so it happened?"
"No."
>Proceeds to say it happened because the books says it will and then did. LOL
Funny how the caller pretended to know so much, when he clearly doesn't understand anything he's talking about (Bayes theorem, Ehrman's body of work, and his own bible). All of the evasions are attempts to not let on how ignorant he is. It was painful when they tried to tell him the gospels conflict each other, and he demanded evidence. How terribly dishonest.
I believe that Jonathan did not know what a syllogism is, and I'm thinking when he tried to look it up, he didn't spell it correctly the first time.
The ending was killer! XD
"Unless you already believe in it..."
*throws bible*
"...It's fucking worthless!"
Eric's voice is so soothing ,sometimes I have to pinch myself to keep from falling to sleep lol. I do like Eric a lot ..very intelligent..
Eric Murphy is the best balance between assertiveness, thoughtfulness and courtesy.
This was the most incredible display of circular reasoning I've seen in ages
You clearly havent seen gary milne
Wow!!! And at the end he ran away! Lol poor guy! “Inducted”
I love how he dishonestly tried to assert they had no evidence by using an argument from ignorance, and then when he got pushed on the evidence that people don't raise from the dead he slipped to special pleading.
Such a dishonest caller.
He did the same in his debate with Matt lol
That was one of the most dishonest callers yet.
Idk...I've heard A LOT of dishonest theists call in...he's definitely high up on the list if he's not though.
That's because he's an apologist. He's Jonathan McLatchie of the Apologetics Academy. The thing is: I think he thinks he's not being dishonest; he believes it. And he's not a dummy. But smart people can rationalize unsupported views really well. See WLC.
@@rsplines12 "...he's not a dummy"
Could have fooled me.
Internal consistency in a book/series of books DOES NOT MAKE IT REAL!!!!! Every single piece of Spiderman media could be internally consistent with each other, that still doesn't mean that a real guy from New York actually got bit by a radioactive spider and gained the ability to climb walls and shot webs from his wrists.
Jonathan clearly has not examined how many actual biblical scholars back up his claims. The level of support is faaaaar lower among those scholars who are not motivated by money and/or faith
I love how Eric keeps asking for examples of the supernatural and John keeps pathetically dodging and eventually runs away when his feet are held to the fire. John if you don't have evidence of it then it's not even a possibility! Well done you two you exposed why every level of this argument was utterly fallacious and begging the question
He thinks the fact that the New Testement appears to have 27 books that collaborate with each other is evidence that there is some truth to the tales, I don't think Jonathan knows how the new testament was put together.
When they were putting together the new testament together they had more than 27 books to choose from, all they had to do was keep the books that best fit the narrative they wish to make, maybe even making a few edits, and toss out the books that contradict the other books.
You could do the same now with alien abduction stories or ghost sightings, put together all the stories that collaborate and ignore the ones that contradict.
Eric: how many people rise from the dead?
Jonathan: exactly, but jesus did!
Jesus supposedly did. And so did Lazarus. Is Lazarus divine? What about the zombies from the graveyard during the supposed crucifixion? Are they divine? What about the people Jesus and his apostles supposedly rose from death? When Jonathan says "yes" or "right", it's a placeholder in the discussion, not an acknowledgement. That's when Eric or Vi or Matt Dillahunty or anyone should STOP the conversation and ask what was meant by "yes" or "right". Call them out on their words instead of allowing them to blather on.
Prove that Jesus rose from the dead outside the bible. Oh you cant.
@@brucewilliams4152 even inside the Bible it’s unverifiable hearsay.
*exactly, that PROVES Jesus did!
The book "Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar" proves that Tarzan is a real person.
I know Olive Oyl is real because she is the girlfriend of Popeye !
And therefore spinach really is good for you.
And we have verified that spinach is good for you, so the rest must be true! :)
@@ricardovonkrypton8908
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Jonathan from Boston starts off with a barefaced lie. “I'm limiting my arguments to cases where scholars have universally agreed on the facts in question” he says (1:05). But he then goes on to make it clear that he regards these supposed 'facts' as including the life, and death by crucifixion (at Passover) and “the fact” of the resurrection of the Jesus Christ character in the Bible. None of these so-called 'facts' are universally agreed by scholars. I am not an academic 'scholar' but I have studied and taught history and I am unaware of any good evidence that the Christ figure ever existed. I do not claim that there was no such person but I do claim that there is no good evidence, and in the absence of such evidence then we cannot verify the historicity of this figure. All we can say is that it is possible, and even plausible, that there might have been wandering rabbis in early first century Palestine who might have claimed the title of 'Christos' (there were probably many such people at the time), and that one of these people may have been called 'Yeshua' (a common Hebrew names in this era, latinised as 'Jesus'). These things are all possible, but this is not the criteria by which we assess the historicity of any historical claim, because what historians should demand is actual, positive evidence for the claim... simply asserting that something 'might have happened' or 'could have happened' does not amount to any kind of evidence.
In addition to this, we have to take account of the total lack of any contemporary evidence for the life of Jesus. The old adage that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is not entirely true, and given that the gospels claim that the Jesus figure was famous throughout Israel and Syria we are entitled to say that the complete absence of any contemporary corroboration for this claim (made decades later by an anonymous writer) is strong circumstantial evidence that the claim is fictitious. While it may be true that in the past most historians (in historically Christian countries) and biblical scholars have accepted the historicity of the Christ figure, there are reasons for this, and they have nothing to do with the nature or strength of the evidence supporting this claim. Modern historians are far less likely than their predecessors to uncritically accept this historicity and several would agree with me that it is just a plausible but unverified (and perhaps unverifiable) claim that is simply widely believed (and not actively challenged as much as it should be) because it is part of a mainstream religious tradition and actively criticising it may have negative career impacts (especially in the US Bible Belt - just as questioning the authenticity of the Koran or the Hadith would not be a good career move for 'scholars' in Muslim majority countries).
Jonathan goes on to say various things (“...Jesus said...”, “...Jesus claimed...”, “...the fact that he was resurrected...” etc.) that clearly show that he takes a less than rigorous approach to history. We have no idea what this claimed, but unverified, character might have said or done because nobody at the time made any notes or reports on his words or deeds. All we have are anonymous assertions from many years later, by people who either made up their stories or (at best) were reporting hearsay (one of the anonymous gospel writers actually admits that this was the case). We have no reason to believe that any of the gospel writers ever spoke to anyone who met this supposed Jesus character, and at a time when life expectancy was relatively low it seems unlikely that people writing many decades later would have known any eye-witnesses.
One of the strongest arguments I have heard for the historicity of Jesus (and it is still not strong enough to be called 'evidence') came from the late Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens pointed out that the tortuously implausible and clearly invented story about how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem was a good indicator that the actual character had in fact existed, but that the circumstances of his birth did not fit the prophecies in the Old Testament, so the gospel writers had invented a ridiculous back-story about a census and a massacre of infants, etc (none of which is borne out by any contemporary evidence). If this is the strongest argument for Jesus' historicity, and it took an atheist polemicist to come up with it, then I think we can safely say that the case for Jesus' existence stands on a par with that of other mythological figures from the Eastern Mediterranean area such as Ulysses or Achilles... or indeed the allegedly blind poet Homer who supposedly wrote down their exploits.
As we listen further to Jonathan he makes it even clearer that he has no interest in actual historical evidence at all and is one of those people who thinks the Bible is true because the Bible says it is. At one point he even says “why do we need extra-biblical sources?” Then he goes on to use the “evidences” nonsense-word, and from that point on we know that there is no hope of convincing this guy with reason and that anything he says can be dismissed without serious consideration.
I don't know why the hosts wasted their time arguing about the resurrection and the risible claims that the disciples supposedly did this, said, that, or believed the other. We have absolutely no evidence about what the supposed disciples did or said or believed because none of them wrote anything and none of them were recorded by verifiable historical figures. Much of this stuff is not even biblical but simply stories that have become part of church tradition. In the Islamic tradition such stories also exist and many have become part of Islamic orthodoxy and are believed by many Muslims... does this make them true? The sad fact is that people like Jonathan don't actually care about what the evidence is and they have no idea what constitutes evidence and what differentiates it from mere assertion anyway. Such people cannot be won over by reason or rationality or logic because they have been convinced that all of these factors can be twisted, or simply ignored, if they do not fit with their own preferred narrative.
While I do agree that Jonathan was using faulty reasoning to justify a pre-held belief, I do want to object to your claims of history.
The argument about Jesus being born in Bethlehem was not created by Christopher Hitchens, it's commonly known among scholars. There are many other such reasons based on the content of the gospels, such as the big bad anointed king figure being crucified, to believe that there really was a preacher who was also a carpenter in 1st century Galilee, born in Nazareth to a Mary and a Joseph, with several siblings, at least one named James, who was eventually crucified by Pontius Pilate.
@@01Sunshine234 -
I have never heard anyone claim that the story of Jesus being born in Bethlehem was invented by Christopher Hitchens... where on Earth did Ms Mas get that idea from? However to state that this story is "...commonly known among historians" is laughable. There are no historians who 'know' this as there is no good historical evidence to support it... all we have are the anonymous and implausible claims by authors who clearly had ulterior motives and who were (at best) regurgitating hearsay stories some two or three generations later. Ms Mas cooks her own goose by admitting that the stories we have are all based on the gospels... and that is precisely my point. One thing we can say for certain about these anonymous writings is that they do not give an accurate or consistent narrative, are very obviously fictitious in part (or in whole), and have been edited and amended to some agree since the originals (which we do not have) were first penned by unknown individuals in unknown locations at various times in the late first and early second centuries AD. The gospels are only evidence of what some people thought or believed, or what they wanted others to believe... that's it.
@@exiled_londoner Read my comment again if you must, I did not claim that you thought the STORY of Jesus being born in Bethlehem was created by Hitchens, I claimed that you thought the ARGUMENT that Jesus was a real person because the gospels would not go out of their way to all say that he was born in Bethlehem was created by Hitchens.
"There is no good evidence to support it."
What is "it"? I only said that historians know the argument that you said "it took an atheist polemicist to come up with."
I can give you a few more pieces of evidence that might convince you: The Messiah was supposed to be a second King David, a manly man. Somebody that would overthrow the oppressors of Israel. If Jesus was made up, they would not have had him crucified. They would not have had him be named Jesus, instead "Immanuel," like the prophecy the author of the Gospel of Matthew misinterprets to retrofit with Jesus.
I addressed the issue of the gospels. I did not say that the gospels were reliable in all that they claimed. They're not. I said that the best explanation for why the gospels were written was that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, because of the evidence stated above.
You may have studied and taught history, but I really doubt it was ancient middle eastern history. If you had, you'd be familiar with how historians have used several methods, like paleography and comparative analysis, to figure out what kind of person wrote each gospel, who they wrote them to, when they wrote them, and why. The most skeptical of critical scholars, Bart Ehrman, wrote a whole book on what we can say confidently about Jesus: "Misquoting Jesus".
Sorry I sounded a bit rant-y. I'm just tired and didn't really feel like putting a lot of effort into writing what I did. Hopefully I'll be more collected the next time I respond. If there is a next time.
@@01Sunshine234 =
Ms Mas makes a valid point and on re-reading her comment I accept that she was citing the argument about the historicity of the nativity story, not the fact that Christopher Hitchens crated this argument himself - but it doesn't really impact on my general point that it's a pretty weak argument. And it's quite true that I was not a specialist in Middle Eastern history or in Classical Antiquity, but rather a generalist historian with a preference for 20th century history. However, I do understand how historical evidence is evaluated and what the criteria are for establishing and verifying historical claims (or very commonly merely the probability to assign to them - especially when dealing with Antiquity) and none of the stories and assertions in the gospels come anywhere near this standard. In fact there are several stories (and not just the miraculous and supernatural ones) where we can say the evidence is positively against them. (eg. the census of Quirinus does not align with the timescale in the gospels and the idea that every family would return to the birthplace of the head of the family is ludicrous and clearly a fictitious invention, as is the 'slaughter of the innocents').
I am familiar with Bart Ehrman's general thesis but he is mistaken and I suspect he is just too personally invested in the stories to let them go, even though he no longer believes in the supernatural stuff. I may not be a specialist in Middle Eastern history but I am well aware that there is simply no good evidence for any of the claims in the gospels and plenty of evidence that the gospels are inconsistent and incompatible with one another, have been subject to editing and additions, and were written for the purposes of promoting a cult. It is only possible to claim that Jesus is a verified historical character whose deeds and utterances are a matter of record by suspending or greatly relaxing the normal rules that dictate how historicity is established and I see no good reason to make such an exception for these claims. If we did this for the gospel stories then why not for Homer's account of the Trojan War?
@@01Sunshine234 -
Either TH-cam is having a meltdown or my PC s playing up, as I can only read the first three sentences of Ms Mas' last post (15 hours ago - and it's now 8.10pm GMT) which appears in my notifications but not when I click on it, and not in the posts under the video. MZ is obviously out to get me. I cannot sort the comments on this video in date order either so I suspect the FU is at TH-cam's end.
My father died a few years ago and a couple of weeks later, I think I saw him in a service station.
The man I saw was dressed like my father, walked like my father and from the side, looked like him.
I followed and walked in front of him to look at his face properly.
He looked at me and turned away. He wasn't my father and I was very disappointed.
Something similar happened to me when my dad died. I saw people with similar characteristics to my dad and my brain jumped to the wrong conclusion, and I misidentiied him.
@@diverguy3556
Yes, I think it must take a long time to get over the loss of a dear friend or relative.
Our brains are so used to seeing them going about their normal activities.
It's easy then to make a mistake, thinking that the person is still alive.
Seeing someone that looks like Jesus, automatically makes us think that person is Jesus.
The entire story and method of recording it is absurd. Why would an all powerful creator send his son/himself to be a sacrifice because we are all wicked from birth because he created us this way? Then "inspires", whatever that means, anonymous authors at unknown times and places to convey his incoherent message via means that aren't preserved in there original form that affects all humanity for eternity. This from a perfect being. Its ridiculous to even have to discuss this nonsense.
This one was frustrating. I think Jonathan's abusing Bayes Theorem here: he's trying to use it without actual data.
If you search for videos explaining Bayes, they all focus on real-world examples, where you can actually plug numbers into the math and generate a numeric result - EG cancer screenings, where we can record and tabulate figures for number of people tested, number of false positives and number of false negatives. You can then plug those actual numbers into the formula and come up with EG a probability, given that your cancer test came up positive, that you've actually got cancer.
He's trying to use a mathematical technique but without any numerical data.
Indeed, though it can be useful to some degree with estimated probabilities, of course, like any mathematical model the result will never meaningfully have more significant figures than your least precise input. This is, of course, problematic when you have even one completely unquantifiable probability as your result will be accurate to 10^0 ie anywhere between impossible and certain which is completely meaningless. And let's face it the uncertainty for a singleton event like that is close to that can't even apply the mediocrity principle for something like the resurrection here as a thorough meta-analysis of all recorded observations of living things dying have failed to produce even a single replication of this event. Contrast that with for example the hypothesis that Earth is not an anomaly among the many Earth-like planets in developing a biosphere where while we may not yet have confirmed every stage of abiogenesis in the lab every one that we have been able to experiment with has consistently supported the hypothesis that a planet around a sufficiently high metallicity star (ie with enough heavy elements around) that is in the temperature range to have liquid water is indeed very likely to have those processes occur within timescales significantly shorter than the average lifetime of a planet.
@@seraphina985 Thanks for this - that idea of the accuracy of the results reflecting the accuracy of your (estimated) parameters puts into actual words a lot of my incoherent misgivings.
"Bart says that he felt forsaken but that's not true"
He literally ASKS GOD "Why have you forsaken me?"
Is the book of Eric available?
It never ceases to amaze me that there are whole universities dedicated to studying the Bible. Just as the church used to have fist fights break out over arguments about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. What color IS unicorn blood, anyway?
@Michael Cool. I'll take that as gospel then. LoL!
My goodness, this video is 36 minutes long, but feels like a damn eternity.
Well according to the Bible rising from the dead occurs pretty frequently. The zombie horde, Jesus, Lazarus...so the question is, why don't we ever see this outside of the Bible if it happened so frequently in the past?
Just chiming in. I think Vi and Eric are some of the best atheist hosts I've ever seen in any context, and make an excellent team. Edit: Also, they're both hot.
The term "eyewitness testimony" is used. Nowhere in any of the gospels is there any claim to eyewitness testimony. We have anonymous manuscripts (not the originals) written in a different language than the one Jesus spoke written a generation or two after the supposed events they describe. This is in no way "eyewitness testimony."
Besides all that eye witness testimony has proven to be the worst form of evidence as people can and do see/remember differently
7:00 So, his argument was basically. P1. Jesus claimed to be God. P2. Jesus claimed that his resurrection would be vindication of P1. P3. In a book it says that Jesus rose from the dead. P4. It is far more surprising that Jesus actually rose from the dead than not. C. Jesus is God. 18:54 P1. God exists. P2. God inspired the Hebrew Bible. P3. The Hebrew Bible predicts that Jesus will rise from the dead. P4. Jesus rose from the dead because it's far more surprising than not. C. Jesus rose from the dead. - His whole point is that Jesus rose from the dead because it's far more surprising than not. OMG. Oh my goodness.
Really enjoyed this call. Learnt heaps from it. And who doesn't like a flying bible 🍻✌️
Special pleading, moving the goal post, confirmation bias, presupposition...
The fact that Jonathan is working backwards- from what he wants to believe, to what he thinks will prove it- emerges from his initial claim that Jesus being crucified at Passover is theologically significant. Why? The Passover sacrifice has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin-- that would be the sin-offering brought all year by people who had committed sins. It isn't even a sacrifice- it's a meal eaten together by the entire people.
I keep wondering exactly what are the probabilities he is using and how did he calculate them.
It seems that the problem was that the caller didn't understand what Eric's contention was at all. I'm not sure if a more direct statement of "What your book says breaks the laws of physics," would get through to him, but it would probably make the call shorter. Just my takeaway from this.
"You're arguing'! Said Jonathan in a surprised tone. Didn't he expect them to? Did he think his arguments were so outstanding that it was all over! Case proved. Ha!
I hate the use of Bayes theorem by people who don't really know Bayes theorem.
"all the evidence! No, I can't give you any, but there's SO MUCH!"
I completely trust that my mother would never lie to her little boy.
So I am confident that Santa Claus really climbs down our narrow chimney with a sack.
Besides, I've seen Santa in the mall, which confirms the whole story.
Why would somebody dress up as Santa to fool children ?
😆😆😆😆😆😆
You've convinced me
This mother of yours sounds like a really trustworthy person
@@kenbee1957
You right.
But oddly, she never told me about the tooth fairy.
I think that is a big hole in my education.
Love the Wayne's World reference, Eric. Love your channel Wish all of you at the ACA well.
Is this Jonathan McLachie? (Apologetics Academy... I think)
He does sound very similar to him. Similar speech pattern too.
Yes, it is.
Yup. Same guy.
“You do accept that Jesus was crucified during the time of passover, correct?” Does this guy not understand he called into an ATHEIST show?
To be fair, being an atheist doesn't mean you don't think Jesus was crucified.
@@Tezwah why would an atheist believe that??
The quote Vi is looking for is from the N.T. itself 1st Cor is all about trying to stop the early church splitting into followers of Peter versus followers of Paul.
Eric became Matt!
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this so apologies if I'm repeating but according to the treaty between Rome and Judea, executions weren't allowed on Holy Days much less High Holy days. Trials and sentencing for capital crimes couldn't happen on the same day because the Jews wanted the judges to sleep on it before sentencing someone to death. Also, the crucifixion of Jesus happened on a different day in John vs. Mark. So what are the chances that any of that happened to fulfill the prophecy. Couldn't happen by treaty, couldn't happen by custom, so how likely is it that he was crucified and died on Passover?
The resurrection of Jesus was not unique.
"And the graves were opened and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and went into town"
Matthew 27:52-53
It seems resurrection in those days was commonplace.
Only according to the Bible.
Also, always wear a necklace or garlic and keep in your dresser a copy of the Good book, Bram Stokers Dracula.
Since so many cultures believed in Vampires, we should trust in the contents of the Good book. Lol
9:15 As someone who reads fanfiction; I've noticed that, these kinds of communities can be used against arguments like "undesigned coincidences" or the "look how well everything fits together, it must be true!"
I mean, just look into things like different kinds of fanon (or headcanons) and fanfiction and how they evolve and expand, how one author comes up with something (maybe a name for an unnamed character, or a new one) and how other authors and fans accept that, other authors include that in their own stories, artist makes fanart including that character.
Sooner or later people forget that the character either isn't canon, people introduced to the series through fanfiction may wonder where it is - or in case of an already existing one, why their personality is so flat (or just wrong).
Little Johnny ran home to mommy crying like a baby 😂😂😂
I've written books that have Atlanta, GA in it. Therefore, according to this guy's logic, since Atlanta is a real place that we can verify, we have flying airships all over the place powered by a mythical gas that I've made up along with steam powered suits of armor. Sheesh... SMH.
VI and Eric make a good panel.
re - 2:05 ish
MISTAKE!!!! Trying to relate jesus to the Old Testament is an enormous mistake. If you start with the assumption that jesus is the messiah, then you might not notice it, but the problem with jesus being the messiah is that (A) he failed to fulfil the prerequisites of the messiah and (B) failed to fulfil the duties/ expectations of the messiah. This is why the Jews don't accept jesus as the messiah. And so any OT prophecies about the messiah weren't talking about jesus. That's all assuming that you accept that the Holy Storybook of the bible is a true and accurate description of events anyway, which we have no good reason to believe (ie, the Roman census that the bible records, but the Roman histories don't and so on and so forth)...
This Jonathan is one of the more irritating callers. Not only does he refuse to accept evidence, he talks way too fast, does not allow for counterarguments, and he doesn't listen. More than once, Vi said something to counter his statement, and he responded with "Right" or "yes", and then said BUT. That means he AGREED with Vi but just couldn't accept it.
If he wanted to refute Bart Ehrman, you should have told him to publish against Bart. Vi's challenge from Ehrman just want over his head.
The high point in this was moments before Eric threw the bible, I had the vision in my mind of me doing exactly that! Kudos, Eric. You kept your cool far too long. That moment was necessary and justified.
Holy Moly, Vi's eyes are amazingly bright. This is a great video. Well done, Eric and Vi.
"if we're talking about a book you have to fact check...."
That's hot fire.
So refreshing to hear a caller come to his point within the first 30 seconds of the call compared to the usual skirting around for 15 minutes
*I love the way Jaime ended this call.......sometimes you just have to draw the line firmly and unapologetically*
2:13 "We have four contending hypothesis, I would maintain." Wow. That's a lot of maintenance for a dude. How does he ever do it?
*Proper syllogisms don't include "if" in any of the premises* - Jonathon was extremely unpersuasive
Um. False?
Conditional Syllogism: If A is true then B is true (If A then B).
Categorical Syllogism: If A is in C then B is in C.
Disjunctive Syllogism: If A is true, then B is false (A or B).
I can name 7 gods who raised from the dead. 1. Dionysus. 2. Persephone. 3. Osiris. 4.Odin. 5. Ganesha. 6. Krishna. 7. Quetzalcoatl.
That really was a treat to observe. Does Jonathan ever wonder why the Jews who were actually there at the time didn't see the experience of Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy? But in his favour at least he doesn't constantly repeat the cute little 'Okay' that most of his type do.
Bayes theorem is as accurate as the data you input. Normally you use empirical data. Using "I think it is more probable" is truly laughable.
I believe in my fellow sisters. I believe that we matter. I care that we are all equal. How ignorant are some to believe that some are equal and others are not.
There could be a hundred direct eye witness accounts of the resurrection, that wouldn't come close to the evidence required to show that it was miraculous. It would be strong evidence that Jesus was a stage magician.
Any sane, smart and awaken human being should focus more on his/her today-life than on any ancient unrealistic religious figure's life. Life is too precious, it should be wiser not to waste human's life on a convoluted argument around any religious mythical figure. Instead, try to set a higher and noble workable goal in our life and pursue and stick to it. Simple to do, no mystical secret nor miracle behind, yet very efficient. The only natural and rational driver is our sincere willingness to achieve our goal with joy.
i agree, but when a religious organization starts to sink its claws in the government, and start to lobby for laws to forcibly indoctrinate children via schools, that's the what sparked the whole atheist movement.
after that there were a lot of revelations, there were actually laws that give more privileges to a certain religion. which goes against the first amendment.
when atheists started the movement and questioned the christians, they put forth the bible,
and when asked if the bible is true, they say it is.
and when asked to prove it, they start spouting bs.
and the result of indoctrination??? well you can watch this video and think for yourself;
how would you feel if your child is indoctrinated and started thinking like jonathan here?
would you be happy to see the future generation lose their ability to think critically and rationally?
@@hakureikura9052 I agree...when that belief in the ancient man's life becomes detrimental to scientific and societal progression, then it becomes necessary to consider said man's existence and abilities.
@@hakureikura9052, you are perfectly right. As educator I value critical thinking and sound reasoning. Religion-indoctrination should be banned in global digital era. It is a mind-killing like a virus. It ruins children's logical thought process at their early age. This is nothing but another form of "child abuse". Seriously disgusting.
@@willyh.r.1216 i don't really care much about religion... just so long as they don't poison our future generation with lies masquerading as truth...
did you remember in the 1990's? you rarely hear any atheists... because back then the civilization is starting to get secular, and somehow... it hurt the religious groups!! atheists didn't even do anything!! humans simply decided to slowly veer away from dogma as its not very practical. less people go to church without even the atheists' intervention!
its just... when you really read the bible and what comes out from the preacher's mouth, its just garbage.
atheists didn't drive away believers! critical thinking did! and thats what scares the hell out of fundamentalist christians.
when people start to learn HOW TO THINK.
that's why fundamentalists are hell bent on indoctrinating children...
you're right, it IS child abuse...
they should be punished by the law!
I keep asking the question of theists: why do I have to do all these mental gymnastics? If your god exists, why doesn’t he show himself? Why not provide evidence? You can’t claim that knowing god exists removes free will because Satan and 1/3 of the demons knew he existed. And yet they still rejected him.
Here's the thing about making inductive arguments. When we fit a scientific model to some data, and then that model makes predictions that come true, we can have a reasonable degree of confidence that MORE predictions of that model are probably reliable. This is induction.
The Bible isn't a model. It's a collection of unsubstantiated stories that often seem to have nothing to do with each other by anonymous authors. We don't have a model based on empirical facts that we've used to make predictions that are empirically verified, so we have no basis for inferring the accuracy of one claim from the accuracy of another.
Lastly, isn't it amazing how soothing Vi and Eric are to listen to? I think Matt is awesome, and all you guys there at ACA are brilliant. But Vi and Eric have the further advantage of being relaxing to listen to.
Just saying, I am also from Boston and am pretty ashamed that I share geography with that caller.
“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. ” - Luke 21:32-33
“And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us, therefore, cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light.” - Romans 13:11-12
“Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.” - James 5:8
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” - 1 John 2:18
“But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” - 1 Peter 4:7
These words were written between 1800 and 1900 years ago and were meant to warn and prepare the first Christians for the immediate end of the world. Some words are those supposedly straight out of the mouth of the “Son of God.” The world did not end 1800 or 1900 years ago. All that generation passed away without any of the things foretold coming to pass. No amount of prayer brought it about; nor ever so much patience and belief and sober living. The world went on, as usual, indifferent to the spoutings of yet another batch of doomsday prophets with visions of messiahs dancing in their deluded brains. The world, by surviving, makes the above passages contradictions.
Conclusion
What is incredible about the Bible is not its divine authorship; it’s that such a concoction of contradictory nonsense could be believed by anyone to have been written by an omniscient god. To do so, one would first have to not read the book, which is the practice of most Christians; or, if one does read it, dump in the trash can one’s rational intelligence - to become a fool for god, in other words.
To be an atheist, one need only be able to laugh when such obvious nonsense is offered as being “divine” truth.
All Bible quotes from the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (New York: Abradale Press, 1965)
This is an adaptation of an article originally written by former Interim President and current member of the Board of Directors Frank Zindler.
This is just proof that there is at least one person from the first century who is still alive... duh!
It's me. And GODDAMN am I tired.
@@DangerKennyB get some sleep. We need you to fend off the angry guy upstairs
So far heaven and earth havent passed away and biblical claims are just claims,verbal assertions that hold no validity.countless x-tian sects have warned the end is here yet all have been proven wrong..
@@johnd.shultz7423 but... coronavirus!!!
8:48 And DONE! How can he continue after this. Nice job Vi!
It’s so adorable when theists try to logic!
I find it amazing how theists can't see these blazingly obviously errors. They just run through 10 errors and missed everyone.
Honestly this whole call was a cascade of bullshit and Johnathan's immediate refusal to provide extra-biblical evidence for ANY of his claims is a HUGE RED FLAG. Not that y'all need any help discerning this, but it's kind of staggering to see in practice.
Damn Vi is spot on with the Coronavirus quarantine prophecy.... hope aliens do save us!
Science saved us. I was rooting for aliens.
The probability that this caller has ever worked out an actual, numerical probability - tends to zero.
For clarity, probability isn't generally apportioned based on how much you like the story.
Oh I love Bayes' theorem!Lets see: what was the prior probability of a God or Goddess that communicated through ancient human social media, like stone tablets, or human hand-written books, or accounts of human witnesses, or whispers to human prophets or priests... like the egyptian gods, the mesopotamian ones, the canaanites, and so on...
In ancient times was pretty high! So, yet another one must be totally legit!
I whirling gyre of circular arguments and using trivia to support miracles. Using this logic the opening scenes of World War Z are set in New York, New York exists, therefore, zombies exist.
As soon as he said evidences he lost the tentative credibility that I had granted him.
None of the writing in the bible were written during Jesus life. Then each of the books were also written at different time from each other. So one writer may have read the other stories. Not to mention the fact we don't know who wrote the stories.
Remember, McLatchie is a dishonest grifter.
He got owned by Matt so badly he rage quit the debate.
my head hurts now. anyone elses head hurt now too?!
Yup. It's a very specific headache 🤣
"And the graves were opened and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of their graves after the resurrection and went into town to order hamburgers from McDonald's"
(Matthew 27:52+)
"Look! I have a collection of books written by unknown authors that have been edited over time by various authorities. Many details of the books have been shown to be false. Other claims can't be confirmed. So its credibility is questionable, at best. I have these gospel stories written by unknown authors written after the fact of supposed events. They had prior knowledge of prophecies so could easily wrap their narratives around them in the making. In fact, they sometimes use prophecies that don't actually exist in the older texts. They were the product of oral tradition that had been circulating for years and were able to copy from base material. So similarities were inevitable. Except the 4th gospel, which is often way off base from the first three. All of which were voted on from a large collection of books for inclusion into the canon. Because they matched a preexisting, chosen narrative by the ones doing the voting.
"Wow! Isn't it amazing how they are so similar and make amazing claims that match earlier, amazing claims? So it must all be true!!!"
I'd love to see how he's arriving at his probabilities. Probably just pulling them out of his derriere.
Could Jesus have orchestrated his own death? Sure. Just perform an act of treason. Which was punishable by crucifixion.
I cringed every time he used the word "hypothesis." He never actually had one.
When reading a book in which fantastic events take place, such as walking on water or animals speaking in medieval English or aliens abducting men for experimental research, you should immediately suspect that the book is not describing everyday events and is very likely to be a work of fiction. This applies to science fiction books, all religious books and many other genres..
This was like watching a baby deer try to stand for the very first time, except the baby deer eventually figured it out
This is what happens when believers try to use reason. It's right up there with, "Science 100% supports the Bible" and "Two hundred lousy arguments add up to 200% proof". Perhaps Jonathon is good at snowing Sunday School kids but he's way over his head this time. However, I'll give him his apologist training. He steadfastly refuses to listen to, much less consider the counter arguments.
Sad thing is this guy probably feels he won the battle of wits with his flawed logic. Good job Eric
Why do people constantly try to prove the validity of the Bible using itself? They have to see that it’s silly to do that.
Trouble is, with all those books collected into a book that has no definite author, we need points of confirmation outside that book.
Actually the mass hallucination is possible! If they were doing drugs to cope with their grief.
Calls something a ridiculous argument and then goes into undesigned coincidences 😂
it is impossible to determine probability without demonstrating possibility.
"Well it's probable if you accept that a god exists"
"Why would I accept that?"
*hangs up*
Classic.
Hell YEAH! REALLY enjoyed THAT one!
improbable claims require improbable evidence.
Richard Carrier has some great hypotheses on the reliability of the Gospels. He thinks they were all based on Mark. This would explain their similarities.